Abstract

Pelvic Floor Rehabilitation After Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial (FORCE Trial)

Ann Surg. 2022 Jul 1;276(1):38-45.doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005353. Epub 2021 Dec 28.

 

J A G van der Heijden 1A J Kalkdijk-Dijkstra 1 2J P E N Pierie 3 4H L van Westreenen 5P M A Broens 2B R Klarenbeek 1FORCE trial group

Collaborators

  • FORCE trial group: 

Jhw de WiltMwj StommelAja BremersC RosmanP R de ReuverSaw BouwenseB M van der KolkL M GarmsK Meerten-van den BeltMrm Olde Hartman-HofsteJwm PetersL OlsderI HuizingM TrzpisEjb FurneeK HavengaPhj HemmerB van EttenA KoopL van der HeideD KamphuisS A KoopalC HoffH EkerHhm JunteIjh SchoenakerS QuaedackersM J BosH GardienT C van SprundelP D de VriesJ F AshrufL GeurtsI NielenJ PfeilM van ArkS W PolleB HanssonF PolatH de VriesE Ten Berge-GroenA K TalsmaR BoskerE VeurinkM PapaAjg Maaskant-BraatFjc van den BroekWkg LeclercqG D SlooterF CaersM BoeijenR van den BroekK van SchaikD K Wasowicz-KempsB S LangenhoffM J van den BogaardJ van der SluisD AriszS BruinsmaD A HessE J MulderB WieringS KokJ WolteringB Raap-van SleuwenL SchoonderwoerdD HendriksN van den ElzenI van de LaakM ValkW van der MeijB J van WelyM J van HoogstratenM van der SluisI PaulusmaMjw MollersR LooijenHcj van der MijleIta PereboomPmc Tijink-CallenbachR A SchasfoortS J van der HagenW van de MeerM LubberinkM van HaskeraF WitM JeeningaR Ten HoeveFcw SlootmansB InbergL de NesD ToonenM A WilmsenO BuyneF FerenschildM de VriesC AdamseB L Hettema-BeetsM K GoudswaardM van der VeldeD W ElvingR E Arends-SmitJ R BuiterI van der Itte-van AerleK JansmaL KooistraS Lohof-VenemaM R KruijerG DijkstraM A van der Erf-EllingV Kats-de BoerA M RinsemaM Haarlemmer-LutjeboerA van der VegtSmh Berends-PorsA J PonsteinG KlaassenA M NieuwintM Veninga-JansenV Dries-JansenF J ArendsN E Stellingwerf-GoingaN G OvermarsH van AsmaK BeverdamMjac PloumenM TijhuisA H Visser DuivenM FormerMal Smans-KaalCmj Vorsterman van Oijen-LinthorstN N Hovels-KampL R VorsteveldN VermeulenA Alkemade-van VeghelL J SteentjesHgm Cornelisse-TheunissenJ StrijboschS SniekersJma Oerlemans-van OijenHmj HoefnagelsCjda SniekersS BiemansY Bomert-WendtHgm van GaalAhcw SmuldersW AdamsJ M KappenA M Vermeltfoort-JansenMgc ZeggerC VrielinkH M SlotmanNjh ClaessensAwm Manders-de GrootCtpg van Beuzekom-van der VorstMwc Swinkels-NijssenP van OeverenJpf van Leeuwen-NellestijnM BleijenbergJjf Valenteyn-HiddenM G van Rutten-de GrootM van den van der HeijdenNieuwenhuizenP G BoorsmaN BroodmanM E EllingE Bokkers-EngelenG H Hilhorst-DroppersHjc MeinM Gielen

 
     

Author information

1Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

2Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

3Post Graduate School of Medicine (PGSOM), University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

4Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands.

5Department of Surgery, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, the Netherlands.

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the effects of PFR after LAR compared to usual care without PFR.

Summary of background data: Functional complaints, including fecal incontinence, often occur after LAR for rectal cancer. Controversy exists about the effectiveness of PFR in improving such postoperative functional outcomes.

Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial involving 17 Dutch centers. Patients after LAR for rectal cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to usual care or PFR and stratified by sex and administration of neoadjuvant therapy. Selection was not based on severity of complaints at baseline. Baseline measurements were taken 3 months after surgery without temporary stoma construction or 6 weeks after stoma closure. The primary outcome measure was the change in Wexner incontinence scores 3 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes were fecal incontinence-related quality of life, colorectal-specific quality of life, and the LARS scores.

Results: Between October 2017 and March 2020, 128 patients were enrolled and 106 randomly assigned (PFR n = 51, control n = 55); 95 patients (PFR n = 44, control n = 51) were assessable for final analysis. PFR did not lead to larger changes in Wexner incontinence scores in nonselected patients after LAR compared to usual care [PFR: -2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.3 to -1.4, control: -1.3, 95% CI -2.2 to -0.4, P = 0.13]. However, PFR was associated with less urgency at follow-up (odds ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.86). Patients without near-complete incontinence reported larger Wexner score improvements after PFR (PFR: -2.1, 95% CI -3.1 to -1.1, control: -0.7, 95% CI -1.6 to 0.2, P = 0.045). For patients with at least moderate incontinence PFR resulted in relevant improvements in all fecal incontinence-related quality of life domains, while the control group deteriorated. These improvements were even larger when patients with near-complete incontinence were excluded. No serious adverse PFR-related events occurred.

Conclusion: No benefit was found of PFR in all patients but several subgroups were identified that did benefit from PFR, such as patients with urgency or with at least moderate incontinence and no near-complete incontinence. A selective referral policy (65%-85% of all patients) is suggested to improve postoperative functional outcomes for patients after LAR for rectal cancer.

Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Registration, NTR5469, registered on 3 September 2015.

 

© Copyright 2013-2025 GI Health Foundation. All rights reserved.
This site is maintained as an educational resource for US healthcare providers only. Use of this website is governed by the GIHF terms of use and privacy statement.