Efficacy of uncovered colonic stents for extrinsic versus intrinsic malignant large bowel obstruction

Management of obstructed colorectal carcinoma in an emergency setting: An update

Colorectal carcinoma is common, particularly on the left side. In 20% of patients, obstruction and ileus may be the first clinical manifestations of a carcinoma that has advanced (stage II, III or even IV). Diagnosis is based on clinical presentation, plain abdominal radiogram, computed tomography (CT), CT colonography and positron emission tomography/CT. The best management strategy in terms of short-term operative or interventional and long-term oncological outcomes remains unknown. For the most common left-sided obstruction, the first choice should be either emergency surgery or endoscopic decompression by self-expendable metal stents or tubes. The operative plan should be either one-stage or two-stage resection. One-stage resection with on-table bowel decompression and irrigation can be accompanied or not accompanied by proximal defunctioning stoma (colostomy or ileostomy). Primary anastomosis is more convenient but has increased risks of anastomotic leakage and morbidity. Two-stage resection (Hartmann's procedure) is safer and the most widely used despite temporally affecting quality of life. Damage control surgery in high-risk frail patients is less frequently performed since it can be successfully substituted with endoscopic stenting or tubing. For the less common right-sided obstruction, one-stage surgical resection is more beneficial than endoscopic decompression. The role of minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotic) is a subject of debate. Emergency laparoscopic-assisted management is advantageous to some extent but requires much expertise due to inherent difficulties in dissecting the distended colon and the risk of rupture and subsequent septic complications. The decompressing stent as a bridge to elective surgery more substantially decreases the risks of morbidity and mortality than emergency surgery for decompression and has equivalent medium-term overall survival and disease-free survival rates. Its combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation may have a positive effect on long-term oncological outcomes. Management plans are crucial and must be individualized to better fit each case.

Self-expanding metal stents for the treatment of malignant colon obstruction from extra-colonic malignancy versus intra-colonic malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The relative utility of self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) insertion for malignant colon obstruction (MCO) due to extra-colonic malignancy (ECM) versus intra-colonic malignancy (ICM) is understudied.

METHODS

A systematic search was done from inception-April 2021 to identify reports of safety and efficacy of SEMS insertion for the treatment of MCO-ECM versus MCO-ICM. A meta-analysis of proportions, comparative meta-analysis to compute relative risks (RR), and mean differences (MD) was performed. Subgroup analyses and influence analyses were conducted. The certainty in estimates of effect(s) was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Eight non-randomized studies were identified; 46% (39-53%) and 63% (59-67%) of patients in the ECM and ICM groups were male. Most obstructions were in the rectosigmoid colon in both ECM and ICM groups. SEMS insertion in MCO-ECM was associated with an increased risk of technical failure compared to MCO-ICM (RR 2.92; 1.13-7.54; Certainty: Very Low). Risk of clinical failure of SEMS was higher in MCO-ECM compared to MCO-ICM (RR 2.88; 1.58-2.52; Certainty: Very Low). The risk of clinical failure remained significant throughout the influence analysis, as well as on subgroup analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of adverse events or luminal perforation with SEMS insertion among patients with MCO-ECM and MCO-ICM. On influence analysis, removal of one study unveiled a significant increase in the risk of luminal perforation in MCO-ECM (RR 3.22; 1.44-7.19; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

SEMS for MCO-ECM may have a technical success rate comparable to or questionably worse than MCO-ICM, with low certainty in estimate of effects. SEMS deployment in MCO-ECM carries a higher risk of clinical failure, with a questionably higher risk of luminal perforation.

Over-the-catheter endoscope replacement for stenting in patients with inaccessible malignant colonic obstruction with coexisting peritoneal carcinomatosis

Although a large-caliber endoscope (LCE) is indispensable for through-the-scope placement of a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) in patients with malignant colonic obstruction (MCO), inaccessibility of the target obstructing lesion (TOL) by the endoscope is a significant cause of unsuccessful procedures. We herein present a novel salvage procedure when the TOL is not directly accessible by an LCE in conditions such as coexisting peritoneal carcinomatosis involving the colon. The salvage procedure, termed over-the-catheter endoscope replacement (OCER), starts with an ultraslim endoscope suitable for deep insertion beyond a tortuous colon for traversing a guidewire through the TOL. The ultraslim endoscope is then withdrawn and replaced by an LCE through the following steps. An endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography catheter is preloaded in the LCE, the catheter alone is passed over the guidewire already traversed through the TOL, and the LCE is navigated over the catheter as far as possible toward the TOL to deliver the SEMS delivery system in a standard through-the-scope manner or further in an over-the-wire manner even if LCE insertion is incomplete. Among the 165 patients with MCO who underwent stenting during our study period, OCER led to successful procedures in all nine patients whose TOLs were initially inaccessible because of colon-involving peritoneal carcinomatosis. By utilizing the functions of distinctive endoscopes in a unique and complementary way, OCER can be a practical salvage option for challenging cases of MCO that are highly prone to unsuccessful palliation by conventional SEMS placement.

Endoscopic Management of Luminal Strictures: Beyond Dilation

Luminal strictures can occur as part of many different gastrointestinal (GI) disorders anywhere along the GI tract and affect all age groups. The end goal of managing any stricture is to re-establish an adequate and durable luminal patency that is sufficient to resolve the presenting clinical symptoms. Treatment options can be generally categorized into medical, endoscopic, and surgical. However, within each of these categories, multiple different options are available. Therefore, choosing the best treatment modality is often challenging and depends on multiple factors including the type, location, and complexity of the stricture, as well as the preference of the treating physician. In this article, we will review the most current literature regarding foregut strictures, particularly esophageal and gastric, beyond dilation.

Self-expanding metal stent insertion by colorectal surgeons using a two-person approach colonoscopy without fluoroscopic monitoring in the management of acute colorectal obstruction: a 14-year experience

BACKGROUND

Placement of a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) in patients presenting with an acute colorectal obstruction (ACO) may obviate emergency surgery (ES), potentially effectively palliating incurable tumors, acting as a bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with operable or potentially operable tumors and achieving effective decompression of other ACO. We present our experience with SEMS insertion by colorectal surgeons without fluoroscopic monitoring for ACO especially for acute malignant colorectal obstruction (AMCO) for nearly a 14-year period (2007-2020).

AIM

To explore the safety and effectiveness of SEMS insertion in the management of ACO by colorectal surgeons using a two-person approach colonoscopy without fluoroscopic monitoring.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of patients retrospectively to identify all patients presenting to our unit with ACO especially with AMCO who had stenting carried out to achieve colonic decompression. All 434 procedures were performed by colorectal surgeons using a two-person approach colonoscopy without fluoroscopic monitoring.

RESULTS

The overall technique success rate and clinic success rate by SEMS insertion were 428/434 (98.6%) and 412/434 (94.9%). The overall incidence of complications by SEMS insertion was 19/434 (4.4%). The complications included clinical perforation (6/434, 1.4%); stent migration (2/434, 0.5%), 1 of which re-stent; stent detachment (fell off) (3/434, 0.7%), none of them with re-stent; stool impaction (6/434, 1.4%), 1 of which re-stent; and abdominal or anal pain (2/434, 0.5%). There was no hemorrhage in any of the 434 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

SEMS insertion is a relatively safe and effective technique for colonic decompression in dealing with ACO as either a BTS or as a palliative measure. It is also a solution to other causes of ACO such as recurrent tumor, benign diseases, or extra-luminal compression. Therefore, ES was largely avoided.