The effect of increased body mass index values on surgical outcomes after radical resection for low rectal cancer
This study aimed to explore the effect of increased body mass index (BMI) values (overweight: BMI ≥ 25–30 kg/m2; obese: BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) on surgical outcomes after radical resection for low rectal cancer (LRC).
Patients with LRC who underwent radical surgery from January 2009 to December 2013 were included. The patients were divided into three groups according to their BMI values (control group: BMI < 25 kg/m2; overweight group: BMI 25 to < 30 kg/m2; obese group: BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). The patients’ clinicopathological characteristics and survival data were collected and analyzed.
A total of 792 patients were enrolled in this study finally (control, n = 624; overweight, n = 147; obese, n = 21). The baseline characteristics of the three groups were similar. We found that an increased BMI was associated with a longer operative time (P < 0.001) and length of postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.032). Patients with increased BMI values had a significantly higher incidence of postoperative complications, including pulmonary infection (P = 0.008), anastomotic leakage (P = 0.029), allergy (P = 0.017) and incisional hernia (P = 0.045). The limited data showed that the pathological outcomes of the three groups did not differ to a statistically significant extent. A multivariate analysis showed that increased BMI was not associated with poorer OS or DFS.
In LRC resection, an increased BMI was associated with a longer operative time, postoperative hospital stay, and an increased number of postoperative complications. However, it did not contribute to poorer pathological or survival outcomes.
KeywordsBody mass index Low rectal cancer Surgical outcome Complication Survival
This work was supported by the Science and Technology Support Program of the Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province (Grant numbers: 2016SZ0043).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest in association with the present study.
- 6.Bebenek M, Pudelko M, Cisarz K, Balcerzak A, Tupikowski W, Wojciechowski L, et al. Therapeutic results in low-rectal cancer patients treated with abdominosacral resection are similar to those obtained by means of anterior resection in mid- and upper-rectal cancer cases. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33(3):320–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH, Kim S, Kang SB, Lim SB, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(7):767–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, Boller AM, George V, Abbas M, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1346–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 16.Kwak HD, Ju JK, Kang DW, Baek SJ, Kwak JM, Kim J, et al. Outcomes according to body mass index following laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2018;14(2):134–9.Google Scholar
- 21.Kawamata F, Homma S, Minagawa N, Kawamura H, Takahashi N, Taketomi A. Comparison of single-incision plus one additional port laparoscopy-assisted anterior resection with conventional laparoscopy-assisted anterior resection for rectal cancer. World J Surg. 2014;38(10):2716–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Hovaguimian F, Lysakowski C, Elia N, Tramer MR. Effect of intraoperative high inspired oxygen fraction on surgical site infection, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and pulmonary function: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Anesthesiology. 2013;119(2):303–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Akagi Y, Adachi Y, Kinugasa T, Oka Y, Mizobe T, Shirouzu K. Lymph node evaluation and survival in colorectal cancer: review of population-based, prospective studies. Anticancer Res. 2013;33(7):2839–47.Google Scholar