Skip to content

Comparison of Postoperative Anal Function Between Parks and Bacon Techniques in Low Rectal Cancer

Comparison of Postoperative Anal Function Between Different Anastomosis Techniques(Parks Versus Bacon) in Low Rectal Cancer: A Prospective, Multicentric and Randomized Controlled Study

Status
Recruiting
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05943444
Enrollment
256
Registered
2023-07-13
Start date
2023-08-08
Completion date
2027-08-08
Last updated
2025-12-18

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Anastomotic Leak, Low Anterior Resection Syndrome, Quality of Life, Rectal Neoplasms

Keywords

anal function, Parks technique, Bacon technique

Brief summary

The goal of this study is to compare the postoperative anal function of patients with ultra-low rectal cancer after Parks operation (colon anal anastomosis) and Bacon operation (colon anal pull-out anastomosis), which may provide clinical evidence for the improvement of anal function and quality of life. The main questions it aims to answer are: the difference of anal function 1 year after surgery type of study: clinical trial participant population: patients with low rectal cancer Participants will receive Parks operation of Bacon operation If there is a comparison group: Researchers will compare Parks and Bacon operation to see if the anal function 1 year after surgery is different.

Detailed description

objective: To compare the postoperative anal function of patients with ultra-low rectal cancer after Parks operation (colon anal anastomosis) and Bacon operation (colon anal pull-out anastomosis), which may provide clinical evidence for the improvement of anal function and quality of life. primary outcome: Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) score 1 year after surgery secondary outcomes: 1. LARS score at 3 months after surgery 2. LARS score at 6 months after surgery 3. Postoperative Quality of Life Score 4. The incidence of postoperative anastomotic complications

Interventions

PROCEDUREParks technique

compare different operational styles of low rectal cancer

PROCEDUREBacon technique

Bacon technique

Sponsors

Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. Men or women, aged between 18 and 75 years; 2. Pathological diagnosis of rectal cancer before operation, with the distance from the lower edge of the tumor to the dentate line ≤ 3cm by MR imaging; 3. No local complications (including complete/ incomplete obstruction, active bleeding, local invasion of sphincter or levator ani, etc.) before operation; 4. Suitable for anal preservation surgery discussed by MDT; 5. Adequate bone marrow, liver, renal and cardiac function meeting the requirements of surgery and anesthesia; 6. R0 resection is expected technically; 7. Provision of written informed consent.

Exclusion criteria

1. Previous history of malignant colorectal tumors; 2. Complications such as obstruction and gastrointestinal bleeding that need an emergency operation; 3. Unachievable R0 resection due to invasion of adjacent organs by primary tumor; 4. Multiple primary tumors; 5. History of other malignancy; 6. Participation in other clinical trials within the previous 4 weeks of enrollment; 7. ASA physical status score ≥ IV level and/or ECOG performance status ≥ 2; 8. Intolerance of surgery due to liver, renal, cardiopulmonary or coagulation dysfunction, or underlying diseases; 9. History of serious mental disorders; 10. Women in pregnancy or lactation period; 11. Uncontrolled infection before operation; 12. Unsuitable to be included due to other clinical and laboratory conditions by the judgement of investigators.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) score 1 year after surgery1 year after surgeryuse a scoring system for bowel dysfunction after LAR for rectal cancer on the basis of symptoms and impact on quality of life

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
LARS score at 3 months after surgery3 months after surgeryto score bowel dysfunction after LAR
LARS score at 6 months after surgery6 months after surgeryto score bowel dysfunction after LAR
Postoperative Quality of Life Score3, 6, and 12 months after operationusing a score system to access the quality of life after surgery
The incidence of postoperative anastomotic complications3, 6, and 12 months after operationthe corresponding complications after surgery

Countries

China

Contacts

Primary ContactJun Huang, MD
huangj97@mail.sysu.edu.cn13926451242

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026