Which Side Effect Related to Surgery Should Be Described to the Patients Before Treatment?

  • Heleen S. Snijders
  • Fabian A. Holman
  • Koen C. M. J. Peeters


Treatment of rectal cancer has changed substantially over the past decades, resulting in improved outcome. From a surgical point of view, the acknowledgment of the importance of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) and the concomitant introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME surgery) has meant a significant step forward in improving radical resection and thus improving both local control and survival [1]. Also, more accurate imaging modalities such as MRI have led to better patient selection enabling differentiated neoadjuvant treatment for the individual patient. Finally, the (neo)adjuvant therapy itself has become more potent in recent years as well [2].


  1. 1.
    Heald RJ (2000) Total mesorectal excision (TME). Acta Chir Iugosl 47(4 Suppl 1):17–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Minsky BD, Roedel C, Valentini V (2010) Combined modality therapy for rectal cancer. Cancer J 16(3):253–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paun BC et al (2010) Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 251(5):807–818CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Janssen NB et al (2009) Under what conditions do patients want to be informed about their risk of a complication? A vignette study. J Med Ethics 35(5):276–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burns P, Keogh I, Timon C (2005) Informed consent: a patients’ perspective. J Laryngol Otol 119(1):19–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    den Dulk M et al (2009) Multicentre analysis of oncological and survival outcomes following anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 96(9):1066–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Snijders HS et al (2012) Meta-analysis of the risk for anastomotic leakage, the postoperative mortality caused by leakage in relation to the overall postoperative mortality. Eur J Surg Oncol 38(11):1013–1019CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sloothaak DA et al (2013) Treatment of chronic presacral sinus after low anterior resection. Color Dis 15(6):727–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bakker IS et al (2014) High complication rate after low anterior resection for mid and high rectal cancer; results of a population-based study. Eur J Surg Oncol 40(6):692–698CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bullard KM et al (2005) Primary perineal wound closure after preoperative radiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection has a high incidence of wound failure. Dis Colon Rectum 48(3):438–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nastro P et al (2010) Complications of intestinal stomas. Br J Surg 97(12):1885–1889CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henneman D et al (2014) Safety of elective colorectal cancer surgery: non-surgical complications and colectomies are targets for quality improvement. J Surg Oncol 109(6):567–573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peeters KC et al (2005) Late side effects of short-course preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: increased bowel dysfunction in irradiated patients – a Dutch colorectal cancer group study. J Clin Oncol 23(25):6199–6206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lange MM et al (2008) Urinary dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment is mainly caused by surgery. Br J Surg 95(8):1020–1028CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stacey D et al (2014) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD001431Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matthiessen P et al (2007) Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer: a randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg 246(2):207–214CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    den Dulk M et al (2007) A multivariate analysis of limiting factors for stoma reversal in patients with rectal cancer entered into the total mesorectal excision (TME) trial: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol 8(4):297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pachler J, Wille-Jorgensen P (2012) Quality of life after rectal resection for cancer, with or without permanent colostomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (12):CD004323Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peeters KC, Stassen LP (2011) Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection: a feasible technique or the treatment of choice for patients with low rectal cancer? Dig Surg 28(5-6):410–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maas M et al (2011) Wait-and-see policy for clinical complete responders after chemoradiation for rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 29(35):4633–4640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Snijders HS et al (2014) Preoperative risk information and patient involvement in surgical treatment for rectal and sigmoid cancer. Color Dis 16(2):O43–O49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Salzburg Global Seminar (2011) Salzburg statement on shared decision making. BMJ 342:d1745Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Elwyn G, Frosch D, Rollnick S (2009) Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions. Implement Sci 4:75CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Gijn W et al (2012) The EURECCA project: data items scored by European colorectal cancer audit registries. Eur J Surg Oncol 38(6):467–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heleen S. Snijders
    • 1
  • Fabian A. Holman
    • 1
  • Koen C. M. J. Peeters
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryLeiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations