Clinical application of the LARS score: results from a pilot study

• Published in: International journal of colorectal disease Vol. 32; no. 3; pp. 409 - 418
• Main Authors: Ribas, Yolanda, Aguilar, Francesc, Jovell-Fernández, Esther, Cayetano, Ladislao, Navarro-Luna, Albert, Muñoz-Duyos, Arantxa
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.03.2017; Springer; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Care and treatment; Colorectal cancer; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Feces; Female; Gastroenterology; Hepatology; Humans; Internal Medicine; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Original Article; Pilot Projects; Prevalence; Proctology; Quality of Life; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures; Rectal Neoplasms - surgery; Surgery; Surveys and Questionnaires; Syndrome; Faecal incontinence; Evacuatory dysfunction; LARS score; Rectal cancer; Low anterior resection syndrome
• ISSN: 0179-1958; 1432-1262
• DOI: 10.1007/s00384-016-2690-7

Purpose The impact of the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) on quality of life has underscored the importance of measuring functional outcomes after treatment for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the LARS score as a single questionnaire was useful enough in the clinical setting. Methods Patients treated by curative anterior resection for rectal cancer were sent the LARS score and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 questionnaires by post. Patients classified as “minor” and “major” LARS according to the LARS score were visited. Assessment included several scores (Vaizey score, Altomare Obstructed Defecation Syndrome score, Bristol scale). Patients with urgency/faecal incontinence also filled in a bowel diary and the FIQL score. Results Seventy patients returned the questionnaires, 49 of whom (“major LARS” and “minor LARS”) were visited and 19 (“no LARS”) were assessed by phone. Four different clinical patterns were identified. The group with urgency/faecal incontinence was the largest (33.8 %), whereas 17.7 % referred evacuatory dysfunction. The LARS score did not correctly evaluate 18 patients: 5 who were classified as no LARS but had severe evacuatory dysfunction and 13 patients categorized as LARS but without significant bowel dysfunction, 9 of whom were classified as major LARS. Conclusion The LARS score may overestimate the impact on quality of life in some patients and may underestimate the impact of severe evacuatory dysfunction. Due to the complexity of the LARS, the LARS score as a single questionnaire might not be enough to assess bowel function. A complete clinical evaluation and additional questionnaires might be required.