Translation and validation of the traditional Chinese version of the faecal incontinence quality of life scale.

PURPOSE: Psychometric evaluation with tools such as the faecal incontinence quality of life scale is an essential component of clinical assessment. Currently, there is no translated Traditional Chinese version of the scale. A validated translated version may help to improve the quality of healthcare received in countries with Chinese minorities (0.5, 1.2 and 4.0% of the UK, USA and Australian population, respectively) as well as local population of Hong Kong. The purpose of this study is to validate the Traditional Chinese version of the faecal incontinence quality of life scale (FIQL). METHODS: The FIQL questionnaire was translated into Traditional Chinese Language followed by linguistic validation. It was then tested on 55 patients with faecal incontinence and 93 controls in the colorectal outpatients clinic. Faecal incontinence severity index was also used for the assessment of disease severity. RESULTS: Internal consistency was good/excellent for all scales (Cronbach's alpha >0.70, between 0.71 and 0.93). The intra-class correlation indicated a high stability over time with coefficients ranging between 0.78 and 0.90. Test and retest of all four scales found no significant differences of mean scores between baseline and retest. The mean faecal incontinence quality of life scale scores of all four domains improved significantly after treatment of 10 patients whose faecal incontinence severity index scores decreased by 50 % of their pre-treatment scores, hence indicating good sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the linguistic and psychometric validity of the traditional Chinese version of the faecal incontinence quality of life scale.

Laparoscopic-assisted versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for mid and low rectal cancer: a prospective, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: This single-center, prospective, randomized trial was designed to compare the short-term clinical outcome between laparoscopic-assisted versus open total mesorectal excision (TME) with anal sphincter preservation (ASP) in patients with mid and low rectal cancer. Long-term morbidity and survival data also were recorded and compared between the two groups. METHODS: Between August 2001 and August 2007, 80 patients with mid and low rectal cancer were randomized to receive either laparoscopic-assisted (40 patients) or open (40 patients) TME with ASP. The median follow-up time for all patients was 75.7 (range 16.9-115.7) months for the laparoscopic-assisted group and 76.1 (range 4.7-126.6) months for the open group. The primary endpoint of the study was short-term clinical outcome. Secondary endpoints included long-term morbidity rate and survival. Data were analyzed by intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: The demographic data of the two groups were comparable. Postoperative recovery was better after laparoscopic surgery, with less analgesic requirement (P < 0.001), earlier mobilization (P = 0.001), lower short-term morbidity rate (P = 0.043), and a trend towards shorter hospital stay (P = 0.071). The cumulative long-term morbidity rate also was lower in the laparoscopic-assisted group (P = 0.019). The oncologic clearance in terms of macroscopic quality of the TME specimen, circumferential resection margin involvement, and number of lymph nodes removed was similar between both groups. After curative resection, the probabilities of survival at 5 years of the laparoscopic-assisted and open groups were 85.9 and 91.3 %, respectively (P = 0.912). The respective probabilities of being disease-free were 83.3 and 74.5 % (P = 0.114). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic-assisted TME with ASP improves postoperative recovery, reduces short-term and long-term morbidity rates, and seemingly does not jeopardize survival compared with open surgery for mid and low rectal cancer ( http://ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00485316).

Laparoscopic colorectal fellowship training programme : a 6-year experience in a university colorectal unit.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate a structured training programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in a university colorectal unit over a 6-year period. METHODS: Data on patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy between November 2004 and October 2010 were analyzed. Operations were performed either by the consultant colorectal surgeons or colorectal fellows. The effectiveness and safety of our structured training programme were evaluated. RESULTS: During the study period, 813 patients (478 men) with a median age 69 years (range 22-93) underwent laparoscopic colectomy. A total of 370 cases (45.5 %) were performed by four colorectal fellows. Overall, 674 patients (82.9 %) were classified as ASA I or II. The conversion rate was 3.7 %. The conversion rate, intra-operative blood loss, number of lymph nodes retrieved and post-operative recovery were similar between the two groups. When comparing with consultant group, the patients operated by fellows were: (1) significantly older; (2) more were operated on as emergency cases; (3) had pathologically less advanced tumours; (4) less patients with low rectal cancers. There were two surgical mortalities in this series. The morbidities between the two groups were similar. At the end of 3 years of training, the fellows had performed more than 85 cases of laparoscopic colectomies. The level of supervision decreased with increased experience. Finally, experienced fellows were able to supervise more junior colleagues on laparoscopic colectomies. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirmed a structured training programme for laparoscopic colectomy is safe and effective. Reasonable results were achieved even though a high volume of cases were performed by surgical fellows.