<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-04-17T07:46:46Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:www.recercat.cat:10256/26375" metadataPrefix="marc">https://recercat.cat/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:recercat.cat:10256/26375</identifier><datestamp>2025-02-12T05:23:43Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_2072_452955</setSpec><setSpec>com_2072_2054</setSpec><setSpec>col_2072_452960</setSpec><setSpec>col_2072_453079</setSpec></header><metadata><record xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
   <leader>00925njm 22002777a 4500</leader>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="042">
      <subfield code="a">dc</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="720">
      <subfield code="a">Planellas Giné, Pere</subfield>
      <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="720">
      <subfield code="a">Fernandes Montes, Nair Sonia</subfield>
      <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="720">
      <subfield code="a">Golda, Thomas</subfield>
      <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="720">
      <subfield code="a">Alonso Gonçalves, Sandra</subfield>
      <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="720">
      <subfield code="a">Elorza Echaniz, Garazi</subfield>
      <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="720">
      <subfield code="a">Gil, J.</subfield>
      <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="720">
      <subfield code="a">Kreisler Moreno, Esther</subfield>
      <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="720">
      <subfield code="a">Abad-Camacho, M.R.</subfield>
      <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="720">
      <subfield code="a">Cornejo, Lídia</subfield>
      <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="720">
      <subfield code="a">Marinello, Franco</subfield>
      <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="260">
      <subfield code="c">2025-01-04</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="520">
      <subfield code="a">Background: Patients with rectal cancer often experience adverse effects on urinary, sexual, and digestive functions. Despite recognised impacts and available treatments, they are not fully integrated into follow-up protocols, thereby hindering appropriate interventions. The aim of the study was to discern the activities conducted in our routine clinical practice outside of clinical trials. Methods: This multicentre, retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery between January 2016 and January 2020 at six tertiary Spanish hospitals. Results: A total of 787 patients were included. Two years post surgery, gastrointestinal evaluation was performed in 86% of patients. However, bowel movements per day were only recorded in 242 patients (46.4%), and the values of the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) questionnaire were recorded in 106 patients (20.3%); 146 patients received a diagnosis of fecal incontinence (28.2%), while 124 patients were diagnosed with low anterior resection syndrome (23.8%). Urogenital evaluation was recorded in 21.1% of patients. Thirty-seven patients (5.1%) were detected to have urinary dysfunction, while 40 patients (5.5%) were detected to have sexual dysfunction. A total of 320 patients (43.9%) had their quality of life evaluated 2 years after surgery, and only 0.8% completed the Quality of Life questionnaire. Medication was the most used treatment for sequelae (26.9%) followed by referral to other specialists (15.1%). Conclusions: There is a significant deficit in clinical follow-ups regarding the functional assessment of patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery. It is crucial to implement a postoperative functional follow-up protocol and to utilize technologies such as Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) to enhance the evaluation and treatment of these sequelae, thereby ensuring an improved quality of life for patients</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="520">
      <subfield code="a">Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind1="8" ind2=" " tag="024">
      <subfield code="a">http://hdl.handle.net/10256/26375</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield tag="653" ind2=" " ind1=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Recte -- Càncer</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield tag="653" ind2=" " ind1=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Rectum -- Cancer</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield tag="653" ind2=" " ind1=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Postoperatori</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield tag="653" ind2=" " ind1=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Postoperative period</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2="0" ind1="0" tag="245">
      <subfield code="a">A word of caution in the functional monitoring of patients after rectal cancer surgery: a multicentre observational study</subfield>
   </datafield>
</record></metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>