Colonic endolumenal stenting devices and elective surgery versus emergency subtotal/total colectomy in the management of malignant obstructed left colon carcinoma

Management Strategies for Malignant Left-Sided Colonic Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Propensity Score Matching Studies

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment strategy for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction remains controversial. Emergency colonic resection has been the standard of care; however, self-expanding metallic stenting as a bridge to surgery may offer short-term advantages, although oncological concerns exist. Decompressing stoma may provide a valid alternative, with limited evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and Bayesian arm random-effects model network meta-analysis comparing the approaches for management of malignant left-sided colonic obstruction.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases was conducted from inception to August 22, 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies.

INTERVENTIONS

Emergency colonic resection, self-expanding metallic stent, and decompressing stoma.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Oncologic efficacy, morbidity, successful minimally invasive surgery, primary anastomosis, and permanent stoma rates.

RESULTS

Nineteen of 5225 articles identified met our inclusion criteria. Stenting (risk ratio 0.57; 95% credible interval, 0.33-0.79) and decompressing stomas (risk ratio 0.46, 95% credible interval: 0.18-0.92) resulted in a significant reduction in the permanent stoma rate. Stenting facilitated minimally invasive surgery more frequently (risk ratio 4.10; 95% credible interval, 1.45-13.13) and had lower overall morbidity (risk ratio 0.58; 95% credible interval, 0.35-0.86). A pairwise analysis of primary anastomosis rates showed increased stenting (risk ratio 1.40; 95% credible interval, 1.31-1.49) compared with emergency resection. There was a significant decrease in the 90-day mortality with stenting (risk ratio 0.63; 95% credible interval, 0.41-0.95) compared with resection. There were no differences in disease-free and overall survival rates, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

There is a lack of randomized controlled trials and propensity score matching data comparing short-term and long-term outcomes for diverting stomas compared to self-expanding metallic stents. Two trials compared self-expanding metallic stents and diverting stomas in left-sided malignant colonic obstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides high-level evidence that a bridge-to-surgery strategy is safe for the management of left-sided malignant colonic obstruction and may facilitate minimally invasive surgery, increase primary anastomosis rates, and reduce permanent stoma rates and postoperative morbidity compared with emergency colonic resection.

Stenting as bridge to surgery versus upfront emergency resection for non-metastatic left sided obstructing colorectal cancer: risk of peritoneal recurrence and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Oncological outcomes of stenting as a bridge to surgery (SBTS) remain a major concern, despite perioperative benefits it offers. This study aims to evaluate the differences in recurrence patterns and survival in patients with non-metastatic, obstructing left sided colon cancers treated by SBTS versus upfront emergency surgery (ES).

METHODS

This is a retrospective, single-centre cohort study of 227 consecutive patients with non-metastatic, obstructing left sided colon cancer between 2007 and 2016. Primary outcomes were pattern of recurrence, and survival. Univariate, bivariate and multivariate logistic regression were done to determine relationships between factors and recurrence. Kaplan Meier curves and log rank tests were used to analyse survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 227 patients included, 62 underwent SBTS and 165 underwent upfront ES. There was a higher rate of peritoneal recurrence in SBTS group (27.4 vs 15.2% p = 0.034), with no difference observed in overall, liver or lung recurrences. No significant difference in overall survival (p = 0.11), cancer specific survival (p = 0.35), or recurrence free survival (p = 0.107) was observed. Univariate analysis showed that SBTS (OR 2.12, p = 0.036), diabetes mellitus (DM) (OR 2.58, p = 0.013), T4 (OR 2.81, p = 0.001), N + (OR 4.02, p = 0.001), lymphovascular invasion (OR 2.43, p = 0.011) contributed to a higher rate of peritoneal recurrence. Bivariate analysis showed synergistic relationship between T4 tumors and SBTS: in T4 tumors that underwent SBTS, the odds of having peritoneal recurrence was 6.8 times higher when compared to ES (p = 0.004); whilst in T2/3 tumors there was no significant difference observed (OR 1.33, p = 0.55). Multivariable analysis showed SBTS (OR 2.60, p = 0.04), DM (OR 2.88, p = 0.012), N + (OR 2.97, p = 0.026) were significant predictors for peritoneal recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

There are concerns over oncological safety of SBTS even with low rates of stent-related perforation. Higher rates of peritoneal recurrence are seen especially with T4 colon cancers treated with SBTS. SBTS, DM and nodal stage were significant predictors for peritoneal recurrence.

Colon cancer: the 2023 Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and treatment

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients' values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.

Colonic stent as a bridge to surgery versus emergency rection for malignant left-sided colorectal obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The role of self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) implantation as a bridge to surgery in malignant left-sided colorectal obstruction (MLCO) remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of SEMS implantation versus emergency surgery (ER) in the treatment of MLCO.

METHODS

Four major literature databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science) were searched to collect articles published before April 20, 2023. After determining random or fixed-effect models based on heterogeneity tests, odds ratios (RR) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Nineteen randomized controlled studies were included. The main outcomes included overall tumor recurrence rate, 30-day mortality rate, and overall incidence of complications. Secondary outcomes included mortality-related indicators, tumor recurrence-related indicators, surgery-related indicators, and other relevant indicators. The study found that there was no significant difference in the 30-day mortality rate between the SEMS group and the er group. However, the SEMS group had a lower overall incidence of complications (RR = 0.787, P = .004), lower incision infection rate (RR = 0.472, P = .003), shorter operation time (SMD = -0.591, P = .000), lower intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -1.046, P = .000), lower intraoperative transfusion rate (RR = 0.624, P = .021), lower permanent stoma rate (RR = 0.499, P = .000), lower overall stoma rate (RR = 0.520,P = .000), shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.643, P = .014), and more lymph node dissections during surgery (SMD = 0.222, 95% CI: 0.021-0.423, P = .031), as well as a higher primary anastomosis rate (RR = 0.472, 95% CI: 0.286-0.7 77, P = .003), among other advantages. However, the SEMS group had a higher overall tumor recurrence rate (RR = 1.339, P = .048).

CONCLUSION

SEMS has significant advantages over er in relieving clinical symptoms and facilitating postoperative recovery in MLCO, but does not reduce the tumor recurrence rate. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with SEMS may provide a new approach to the treatment of MLCO.

Colonic stenting in acute malignant large bowel obstruction: audit of efficacy and safety in a Singapore tertiary referral centre

Introduction

Acute malignant large bowel obstruction (MBO) occurs in 8%-15% of colorectal cancer patients. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) have progressed from a palliative modality to use as bridge to surgery (BTS). We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of SEMS for MBO in our institution.

Methods

The data of patients undergoing SEMS insertion for MBO were reviewed. Technical success was defined as successful SEMS deployment across tumour without complications. Clinical success was defined as colonic decompression without requiring further surgical intervention. Rates of complications, median time to surgery, types of surgery and rates of recurrence were studied.

Results

Seventy-nine patients underwent emergent SEMS placement from September 2013 to February 2020. Their mean age was 68.8 ± 13.8 years and 43 (54%) patients were male. Mean tumour length was 4.2 cm ± 2.2 cm; 89.9% of malignant strictures were located distal to the splenic flexure. Technical and clinical success was 94.9% and 98.7%, respectively. Perforation occurred in 5.1% of patients, with none having stent migration or bleeding. Fifty (63.3%) patients underwent SEMS insertion as BTS. Median time to surgery was 20 (range 6-57) days. Most (82%) patients underwent minimally invasive surgery. Primary anastomosis rate was 98%. Thirty-nine patients had follow-up beyond 1-year posttreatment (median 34 months). Local recurrence and distant metastasis were observed in 4 (10.3%) and 5 (12.8%) patients, respectively.

Conclusion

Insertion of SEMS for acute MBO has high success rates and a good safety profile. Most patients in this audit underwent minimally invasive surgery and primary anastomosis after successful BTS.

Management of left-sided malignant colorectal obstructions with curative intent: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several management options exist for colonic decompression in the setting of malignant large bowel obstruction, including oncologic resection, surgical diversion, and SEMS as a bridge-to-surgery. Consensus has yet to be reached on optimal treatment pathways. The aim of the present study was to perform a network meta-analysis comparing short-term postoperative morbidity and long-term oncologic outcomes between oncologic resection, surgical diversion, and self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) in left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction with curative intent.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Articles were included if they compared two or more of the following in patients presenting with curative left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction: (1) emergent oncologic resection; (2) surgical diversion; and/or (3) SEMS. The primary outcome was overall 90-day postoperative morbidity. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed with inverse variance random effects. Random-effect Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

From 1277 citations, 53 studies with 9493 patients undergoing urgent oncologic resection, 1273 patients undergoing surgical diversion, and 2548 patients undergoing SEMS were included. Network meta-analysis demonstrated a significant improvement in 90-day postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing SEMS compared to urgent oncologic resection (OR0.34, 95%CrI0.01-0.98). Insufficient RCT data pertaining to overall survival (OS) precluded network meta-analysis. Pairwise meta-analysis demonstrated decreased five-year OS for patients undergoing urgent oncologic resection compared to surgical diversion (OR0.44, 95%CI0.28-0.71, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Bridge-to-surgery interventions may offer short- and long-term benefits compared to urgent oncologic resection for malignant colorectal obstruction and should be increasingly considered in this patient population. Further prospective study comparing surgical diversion and SEMS is needed.

A multicenter case-control study of self-expanding metallic stent versus trans-anal colorectal tube for stage II/III non-right-sided obstructive colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) and trans-anal colorectal tube (TCT) are alternative treatments to conventional emergency surgery for non-right-sided obstructive colon cancer (NROCC). However, the one with better short- and long-term outcomes remains controversial. Thus, this multicenter case-control study aimed to analyze and compare SEMS and TCT for NROCC.

METHODS

Patients with stage II/III NROCC who underwent surgery between January 2010 and December 2019 at either of the eight selected Japanese affiliate hospitals were, retrospectively, reviewed. Baseline characteristics between the SEMS and TCT groups were adjusted by propensity score (PS) matching.

RESULTS

Among 239 reviewed patients (SEMS: 76, TCT: 163), 180 were finally included in two well-balanced cohorts through PS: SEMS group (65 patients) and TCT group (115 patients). Technical success, clinical success, morbidity, and short-term mortality were not significantly different between the two groups. SEMS placement achieved significantly higher rates for primary resection/anastomosis without stoma (SEMS: 90.8% vs. TCT: 77.4%, p < 0.001) and laparoscopic surgery (SEMS: 64.6% vs. TCT: 43.5%, p < 0.001) than TCT placement. However, 5-year overall survival (SEMS: 83.7% vs. TCT: 86.4%; p = 0.822) and 5-year relapse-free survival (SEMS: 64.7% vs. TCT: 66.4%; p = 0.854) showed no significant differences between these groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both SEMS and TCT revealed similar long-term outcomes, but SEMS placement was better in achieving primary resection/anastomosis and laparoscopic surgery in patients with stage II/III NROCC.

Comparison of long-term outcomes of colonic stenting as a "bridge to surgery" and emergency surgery in patients with left-sided malignant colonic obstruction

PURPOSE

Long-term oncologic outcomes of colonic stenting as a "bridge to surgery" in patients with left-sided malignant colonic obstruction (LMCO) are unclear. This study was performed to compare long-term outcomes of self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) insertion as a bridge to surgery and emergency surgery in patients with acute LMCO.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients with acute LMCO who underwent SEMS insertion as a bridge to surgery or emergency surgery. The primary outcomes were 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and recurrence rate. Survival outcomes were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests.

RESULTS

There was a trend of worsening 5-year OS rate in the SEMS group compared with emergency surgery group (45% vs. 57%, P=0.07). In stage-wise subgroup analyses, a trend of deteriorating 5-year OS rate in the SEMS group with stage III (43% vs. 59%, P=0.06) was observed. The 5-year DFS and recurrence rate were not different between groups. The overall median follow-up time was 58 months. On multivariate analysis, age of ≥65 years and American Joint Committee on Cancer stage of ≥III, and synchronous metastasis were significant poor prognostic factors for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.709; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.007-2.900; P=0.05/HR, 1.988; 95% CI, 1.038-3.809; P=0.04/HR, 2.146; 95% CI, 1.191-3.866; P=0.01; respectively).

CONCLUSION

SEMS as a bridge to surgery may have adverse oncologic outcomes. Patients in the SEMS group had a trend of worsening 5-year OS rate without higher recurrence.

Short- and long-term outcomes following bridge to surgery and emergency resection in acute malignant large bowel obstruction

AIM

Bridge to surgery (BtS) aims to decrease perioperative morbidity and mortality in emergency resection (ER) of the colon. Previous results are inconsistent, and long-term comparisons are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of BtS and ER.

METHOD

This retrospective study examined data from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry for patients treated for acute malignant large bowel obstruction from 2007 to 2009. Patients were grouped by treatment strategy: BtS (using a self-expanding metallic stent or diverting stoma) or ER. Medical records were scrutinized for all patients in the BtS group. The primary endpoints were 5-year overall survival (OS) and 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS). The secondary endpoints were postoperative mortality and morbidity rates and stoma permanence.

RESULTS

Overall, 143 patients were treated using BtS versus 1302 patients treated with ER. The 5-year OS was higher in the BtS group than in the ER group (53.8% vs. 37.4%; p < 0.05). No difference was noted in the 3-year RFS (75.7% vs. 75.0%; p = 0.38). The postoperative mortality rate was lower in the BtS group than in the ER group (0.7% vs. 7.3%; p < 0.05). Complications occurred in 46.9% of patients in the BtS group (both procedures) versus 35.9% of patients in the ER group (p < 0.05); the rate of severe complications was 23.1% and 16.9%, respectively (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective population-based registry study showed higher long-term survival and lower postoperative mortality rates among patients treated with BtS versus ER for acute malignant large bowel obstruction.

Oncologic safety of colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery in left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: Current evidence and prospects

Approximately 7%-29% of patients with colorectal cancer present with colonic obstruction. The concept of self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) insertion as a bridge to surgery (BTS) is appealing. However, concerns on colonic stenting possibly impairing oncologic outcomes have been raised. This study aimed to review current evidence on the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of SEMS insertion as BTS for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction. For short-term outcomes, colonic stenting facilitates a laparoscopic approach, increases the likelihood of primary anastomosis without a stoma, and may decrease postoperative morbidity. However, SEMS-related perforation also increases local recurrence and impairs overall survival. Moreover, colonic stenting may cause negative oncologic outcomes even without perforation. SEMS can induce shear forces on the tumor, leading to increased circulating cancer cells and aggressive pathological characteristics, including perineural and lymphovascular invasion. The conflicting evidence has led to discordant guidelines. Well-designed collaborative studies that integrate both oncologic outcomes and data on basic research (e.g., alteration of circulating tumors) are needed to clarify the actual benefit of colonic stenting as BTS.

Safety and feasibility of neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a surgical bridge for acute left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

For colorectal cancer, preoperative (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy is more effective than postoperative chemotherapy because it not only eradicates micrometastases more effectively but also reduces the risk of incomplete intraoperative resection and tumor cell shedding. For the treatment of acute left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction, colorectal stents as well as stoma are being used to relieve the obstructive colorectal cancer, and as a bridge to surgery, allowing easy mobilization and resection of the colon. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with decompressing stoma (DS) can be used as a bridge to elective surgery (BTS) as an alternative to emergency surgery in patients with acute left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction, but its benefit is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a bridge to surgery in the treatment of acute left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction.

METHODS

Data from patients who were admitted with acute left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction between January 2012 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed, and patients with gastrointestinal perforation or peritonitis were excluded. We performed one-to-two propensity score matching to compare the stoma requirement, postoperative complications, and other short-term oncological outcomes between the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and surgery group.

RESULTS

There were no differences in intraoperative blood loss, operative time, one-year postoperative mortality, and postoperative tumor markers between the two groups. The 1-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and surgery group were 96.8 and 91.3% (p = 0.562). The neoadjuvant chemotherapy group was able to reduce stoma rate 1 year after surgery (p = 0.047). Besides, the neoadjuvant group significantly reduced postoperative bowel function time (p < 0.001), postoperative hospital stay (p < 0.001), total hospital stay (p = 0.002), postoperative complications (p = 0.017), reduction in need to stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) (p = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a bridge to elective surgery in patients with acute left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction is safe and has many advantages. Prospective multicenter studies with large samples are needed to further evaluate the feasibility of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Upfront surgery versus self-expanding metallic stent as bridge to surgery in left-sided colonic cancer obstruction: A multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

Oncological outcomes of self-expanding metallic stent used as a bridge to surgery in potential curative patients with left-sided colonic cancer obstruction remain unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate perioperative and mid-term oncological outcomes of 2 of the currently most commonly performed treatments in left-sided colonic cancer obstruction.

METHODS

This is a retrospective multicenter study including patients with left-sided colonic cancer obstruction treated with curative intent between 2013 and 2017. The presence of metastasis at diagnosis was an exclusion criterion. The primary outcome was to evaluate the noninferiority, in terms of overall survival, of bridge to surgery strategy compared with emergency colonic resection. The secondary outcomes were perioperative morbimortality, disease free survival, local recurrence, and distant recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 564 patients were included, 320 in the emergency colonic resection group and 244 in the bridge to surgery group. Twenty-seven patients of the bridge-to-surgery group needed urgent operation. Postoperative morbidity rates were statistically higher in the emergency colonic resection group (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.37 [0.24-0.55], P < .001). There was no difference in 90-day mortality between groups (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.85 [0.36-1.99], P = .702). The median follow-up was 3.80 years (2.29-4.92). The results show the noninferiority of bridge to surgery versus emergency colonic resection in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval) 0.78 [0.56-1.07], P = .127). There were no differences in disease free survival, distant recurrence, and local recurrence rates between bridge to surgery and emergency colonic resection groups.

CONCLUSION

Self-expanding metallic stent as bridge to surgery might not lead to a negative impact on the long-term prognosis of the tumor compared with emergency colonic resection in expert hands and selected patients.

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of interval colectomy performed by acute care surgeons after stenting as a bridge to surgery for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction are non-inferior to the outcomes of colorectal surgeons in the elective setting: single center experience

PURPOSE

To analyze if perioperative and oncologic outcomes with stenting as a bridge to surgery (SEMS-BS) and interval colectomy performed by acute care surgeons for left-sided occlusive colonic neoplasms (LSCON) are non-inferior to those obtained by colorectal surgeons for non-occlusive tumors of the same location in the full-elective context.

METHODS

From January 2011 to January 2021, patients with LSCON at University Regional Hospital in Málaga (Spain) were directed to a SEMS-BS strategy with an interval colectomy performed by acute care surgeons and included in the study group (SEMS-BS). The control group was formed with patients from the Colorectal Division elective surgical activity dataset, matching by ASA, stage, location and year of surgery on a ratio 1:2. Stages IV or palliative stenting were excluded. Software SPSS 23.0 was used to analyze perioperative and oncologic (defined by overall -OS- and disease free -DFS-survival) outcomes.

RESULTS

SEMS-BS and control group included 56 and 98 patients, respectively. In SEMS-BS group, rates of technical/clinical failure and perforation were 5.35% (3/56), 3.57% (2/56) and 3.57% (2/56). Surgery was performed with a median interval time of 11 days (9-16). No differences between groups were observed in perioperative outcomes (laparoscopic approach, primary anastomosis rate, morbidity or mortality). As well, no statistically significant differences were observed in OS and DFS between groups, both compared globally (OS:p < 0.94; DFS:p < 0.67, respectively) or by stages I-II (OS:p < 0.78; DFS:p < 0.17) and III (OS:p < 0.86; DFS:p < 0.70).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of a strategy with SEMS-BS for LSCON are non-inferior to those obtained in the elective setting for non-occlusive neoplasms in the same location. Technical and oncologic safety of interval colectomy performed on a semi-scheduled situation by acute care surgeons is absolutely warranted.

Self-Expanding Metal Stents Do Not Adversely Affect Long-term Outcomes in Acute Malignant Large-Bowel Obstruction: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Self-expanding metal stents as a bridge to surgery in acute malignant large-bowel obstruction has gained popularity. However, long-term oncologic outcomes have not been well established.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate long-term oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing curative resection after the placement of a colonic stent compared with emergency surgery for acute malignant large-bowel obstruction.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective study.

SETTING

All patients presenting at 3 tertiary care centers between April 2002 and December 2012 with a diagnosis of complete malignant large-bowel obstruction were reviewed. Patients with disease distal to the hepatic flexure were selected for analysis.

PATIENTS

One hundred twenty-two patients who underwent either emergency surgery or placement of a colonic stent with curative intent were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients receiving emergency surgery within 24 hours of presenting with obstructive symptoms, including those with failed stents, were included in the emergency surgery group. All patients with clinically successful stent deployment before surgery were included in the stent group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall survival and disease-free survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients underwent emergency surgery, and 58 patients underwent placement of a self-expanding metal stent. Groups were similar in terms of sex, tumor stage and grade, and Charlson and Charlson-Age Comorbidity Index scores. Patients in the surgery group were older than patients in the stent group. There were no differences in the number of lymph nodes harvested, positive nodes, rates of vascular and perineural invasion, or utilization of chemotherapy. Thirty-day mortality after resection was similar between groups (7.41% vs 4.41%; p > 0.05). Patients who underwent colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery had similar 10-year overall survival (40.5% vs 32.7%; p = 0.13) and 10-year disease-free survival (40.2% vs 33.8%; p = 0.26) compared with those who underwent emergency surgery. Similar results were seen on intention-to-treat analysis.

LIMITATIONS

This was a small retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Stent insertion followed by oncologic resection is associated with similar overall survival and disease-free survival compared with emergency resection. Stent insertion as a bridge to surgery should be considered in patients presenting with malignant colorectal obstruction. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B714Los Stents Metálicos Autoexpandibles No Afectan Negativamente Los Resultados A Largo Plazo En La Obstrucción Maligna Aguda Del Colon: Un Análisis Retrospectivo.

ANTECEDENTES

Los stents metálicos autoexpandibles como puente a una cirugía en la obstrucción maligna aguda del colon han ganado popularidad. Sin embargo, no se han establecido bien los resultados oncológicos a largo plazo.

OBJETIVO

Investigar los resultados oncológicos a largo plazo de los pacientes sometidos a resección curativa después de la colocación de un stent colónico en comparación con la cirugía de urgencia para la obstrucción maligna aguda del colon.

DISEO

Estudio retrospectivo.

MBITO

Entre abril de 2002 y diciembre de 2012, se revisaron todos los pacientes que acudieron a tres centros de tercer nivel con un diagnóstico de obstrucción maligna completa del colon. Se seleccionaron para el análisis los pacientes con enfermedad distal al ángulo hepático.

PACIENTES

Se incluyeron 122 pacientes que fueron operados de urgencia o a una colocación de un stent colónico con intención curativa.

PROCEDIMIENTOS

Los pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía de urgencia dentro de las 24 horas posteriores a la presentación de síntomas obstructivos; se incluyeron aquellos con stents fallidos en el grupo de cirugía de urgencia. Todos los pacientes con colocación clínicamente exitosa del stent antes de la cirugía se incluyeron en el grupo de stent.

PRINCIPALES VARIABLES ANALIZADAS

La sobrevida global y la sobrevida libre de enfermedad se calcularon mediante el método de Kaplan-Meier.

RESULTADOS

Sesenta y cuatro pacientes fueron llevados a cirugía urgente y en 58 pacientes se colocó de un stent metálico autoexpandible. Los grupos fueron similares en relación a sexo, estadio y grado del tumor, puntuación de comorbilidad de Charlson y Charlson-Age. Los pacientes del grupo de cirugía eran mayores que los del grupo de stents. No hubo diferencias en el número de ganglios linfáticos recolectados, ganglios positivos, tasas de invasión vascular y perineural o utilización de quimioterapia. La mortalidad a los 30 días después de la resección fue similar entre los grupos (7,41% frente a 4,41%; p> 0,05). Los pacientes que se sometieron a la colocación de un stent colónico como puente a la cirugía tuvieron una sobrevida general a diez años similar (40,5% vs 32,7%; p = 0,13) y una sobrevida libre de enfermedad a diez años (40,2% vs 33,8%, respectivamente; p = 0,26) en comparación a los operados de urgencia. Se observaron resultados similares en el análisis por intención de tratamiento.

LIMITACIONES

Estudio retrospectivo reducido.

CONCLUSIONES

La utilización de un stent y posteriormente la resección oncológica se asocia a una sobrevida general y una sobrevida libre de enfermedad similar en comparación con la resección de urgencia. La utilización de un stent como puente a la cirugía debe considerarse en pacientes que presentan obstrucción colorrectal maligna. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B714. (Traducción-Dr. Lisbeth Alarcon-Bernes).

Definition of large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review

AIM

Controversies on therapeutic strategy for large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer mainly concern acute conditions, being essentially different from subacute obstruction. Clearly defining acute obstruction is important for design and interpretation of studies as well as for guidelines and daily practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate definitions of obstruction by colorectal cancer in prospective studies.

METHOD

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria included randomized or prospective observational design, publication between 2000 and 2019, and the inclusion of patients with an obstruction caused by colorectal cancer. Provided definitions of obstruction were extracted with assessment of common elements.

RESULTS

A total of 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 99 prospective observational studies were included. Obstruction was specified as acute in 28 studies, complete/emergency in five, (sub)acute or similar terms in four and unspecified in 78. Five of 16 RCTs (31%) and 37 of 99 cohort studies (37%) provided a definition. The definitions included any combination of clinical symptoms, physical signs, endoscopic features and radiological imaging findings in 25 studies. The definition was only based on clinical symptoms in 11 and radiological imaging in six studies. Definitions included a radiological component in 100% of evaluable RCTs (5/5) vs. 54% of prospective observational studies (20/37, P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

In this systematic review, the majority of prospective studies did not define obstruction by colorectal cancer and its urgency, whereas provided definitions varied hugely. Radiological confirmation seems to be an essential component in defining acute obstruction.

Controversies of colonic stenting in obstructive left colorectal cancer: a critical analysis with meta-analysis and meta-regression

PURPOSE

After almost three decades since the first description of colonic stents, the controversies of its safe application continue to impede the readiness of adoption by clinicians for malignant left bowel obstruction. This review seeks to address some of the controversial aspects of stenting and its impact on surgical and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and CNKI were searched for articles employing SEMS for left colonic obstruction. Outcomes analyzed include success rates, complications, and long-term survival. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated.

RESULTS

36 studies were included with 2002 patients across seven randomized controlled trials and 29 observational studies. High technical (92%) and clinical (82%) success rates, and low rates of complications, including perforation (5%), were found. Those with > 8% perforation rates had poorer technical success rates than those with ≤ 8%, but there were no significant differences in 90-day in-hospital mortality and three and 5-year overall and disease-free survival. A significant increase was found in technical (RR = 1.094; CI, 1.041-1.149; p < 0.001) and clinical (RR = 1.158; CI, 1.064-1.259; p = 0.001) success rates when the duration between stenting and surgery was ≥ 2 weeks compared to < 2 weeks, but there were no significant differences in perforation rates, 90-day in-hospital mortality, and long-term survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonic stenting is safe and effective with high success rates and low complication rates. However, outcomes of higher perforation rates and optimal timing from stent till surgery remain unclear, with only a few studies reporting on these outcomes, leaving areas for future research.

Comparison of the prognosis of four different treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

There is controversy regarding the efficacy of different treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction. This study investigated the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of several treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction.

Methods

We searched for articles published in PubMed, Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, and Cochrane Library between January 1, 2000, and July 1, 2020. We screened out the literature comparing different treatment strategies. Evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of different treatment strategies. The network meta-analysis summarizes the hazard ratio, odds ratio, mean difference, and its 95% confidence interval.

Results

The network meta-analysis involved 48 articles, including 8 (randomized controlled trials) RCTs and 40 non-RCTs. Primary outcomes: the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of the CS-BTS strategy and the DS-BTS strategy were significantly better than those of the ES strategy, and the 5-year OS of the DS-BTS strategy was significantly better than that of CS-BTS. The long-term survival of TCT-BTS was not significantly different from those of CS-BTS and ES. Secondary outcomes: compared with emergency resection (ER) strategies, colonic stent-bridge to surgery (CS-BTS) and transanal colorectal tube-bridge to surgery (TCT-BTS) strategies can significantly increase the primary anastomosis rate, CS-BTS and decompressing stoma-bridge to surgery (DS-BTS) strategies can significantly reduce mortality, and CS-BTS strategies can significantly reduce the permanent stoma rate. The hospital stay of DS-BTS is significantly longer than that of other strategies. There was no significant difference in the anastomotic leakage levels of several treatment strategies.

Conclusion

Comprehensive literature research, we find that CS-BTS and DS-BTS strategies can bring better 5-year OS and DFS than ER. DS-BTS strategies have a better 5-year OS than CS-BTS strategies. Without considering the hospital stays, DS-BTS strategy is the best choice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-021-00355-2.

Current Status of the Self-Expandable Metal Stent as a Bridge to Surgery Versus Emergency Surgery in Colorectal Cancer: Results from an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature

Background: The current use of endoscopic stenting as a bridge to surgery is not always accepted in standard clinical practice to treat neoplastic colonic obstructions. Objectives: The role of colonic self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) positioning as a bridge to resective surgery versus emergency surgery (ES) for malignant obstruction, using all new data and available variables, was studied and we focused on short- and long-term results. Materials and Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases were included. The search comprised only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the interventions that included SEMS positioning versus ES. The primary outcomes were the rates of overall postoperative mortality, clinical and technical success. The secondary outcomes were the short- and long-term results. Results: A total of 12 studies were eligible for further analyses. A laparoscopic colectomy was the most common operation performed in the SEMS group, whereas the traditional open approach was commonly used in the ES group. Intraoperative colonic lavage was seldomly performed during ES. There were no differences in mortality rates between the two groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.04; I² = 0%). In the SEMS group, the rate of successful primary anastomosis was significantly higher in of SEMS (69.75%) than in the ES (55.07%) (RR 1.26, 95% 245 CI 1.01 to 1.57; I² = 86%). Conversely, the upfront Hartmann procedure was performed more frequently in the ES (39.1%) as compared to the SEMS group (23.4%) (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.85; I² = 23%). The overall postoperative complications rate was significantly lower in the SEMS group (32.74%) than in the ES group (48.25%) (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; I² = 65%). Conclusions: In the presence of malignant colorectal obstruction, SEMS is safe and associated with the same mortality and significantly lower morbidity than the ES group. The rate of successful primary anastomosis was significantly higher than the ES group. Nevertheless, recurrence and survival outcomes are not significantly different between the two groups. The analysis of short- and long-term results can suggest the use of SEMS as a bridge to resective surgery when it is performed by an endoscopist with adequate expertise in both colonoscopy and fluoroscopic techniques and who performed commonly colonic stenting.

Diversion, resection, or stenting as a bridge to surgery for acute neoplastic left-sided colonic obstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies with curative intent

INTRODUCTION

The debate on the best surgical management strategy for acute malignant left-sided colonic obstruction is ongoing. Decompressing colostomy (DC) and stenting as a bridge to surgery (SBTS) are the currently proposed alternative approaches to emergency colectomy (EC). However, the results of a traditional meta-analysis were inconclusive. Therefore, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the three approaches for acute left-sided colonic obstruction.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of Embase, PubMed, Google Scholar and the Cochrane library was performed. A traditional meta-analysis and subsequent NMA were conducted.

FINDINGS

A significantly greater number of primary anastomoses were performed in the DC cohort than in the EC and SBTS cohorts. The 90-day mortality rate was significantly lower in the DC cohort than in the EC and SBTS cohorts. Higher costs were associated with the SBTS cohort (by US$2,000) than with the EC cohort. The locoregional recurrence rate was higher for the SBTS cohort than for the EC cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from the first NMA suggests there may be some clinical advantages associated with DC as an alternative approach to the EC and SBTS approaches for adequately selected patients with malignant large bowel obstruction.

Colonic Stents as a Bridge to Surgery Compared with Immediate Resection in Patients with Malignant Large Bowel Obstruction in a NY State Database

BACKGROUND

There is controversy surrounding the efficacy and safety of colonic stents as a bridge to surgery compared with immediate resection in patients presenting with an acute malignant large bowel obstruction.

METHODS

Retrospective longitudinal cohort study using the NYS SPARCS Database. Patients with acute malignant large bowel obstruction who either had stent followed by elective surgery within 3 weeks (bridge to surgery) or underwent immediate resection between October 2009 and June 2016 in the state of New York were included. The primary outcome was rate of stoma creation at index resection. Secondary outcomes were 90-day readmission, reoperation, procedural complications, and discharge disposition.

RESULTS

A total of 3059 patients were included, n = 2917 (95.4%) underwent an immediate resection and n = 142 (4.6%) underwent bridge to surgery. We analyzed 139 patients in propensity score-matched groups. Patients in the bridge to surgery group were less likely than those in the immediate resection group to get a stoma at the time of surgery (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.18-0.60). They were also less likely to be discharged to a rehabilitation facility or require a home health aide upon discharge (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22-0.61). There were no differences in rates of 90-day readmission, reoperation, or procedural complications between groups.

DISCUSSION

Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery leads to less stoma creation, a significant quality of life advantage, compared with immediate resection. Patients should be counseled regarding these potential benefits when the technology is available.

Comprehensive literature review of randomized clinical trials examining novel treatment advances in patients with colon cancer

The treatment of colon cancer has had numerous recent advances, in terms of surgical approach, adjuvant therapies, and more. In this review, the authors examine randomized clinical trials comparing open surgery to laparoscopic surgery (including total mesocolic excision), and also examine the role of robotic surgery. Novel surgical techniques including the no-touch technique, side-to-side anastomosis, suture technique, complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL), and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) are outlined. The role of placing endoscopic self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) for colonic obstruction is compared and contrasted with the surgical approach, and the effect that the anti-VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab may have on this side effect profile is further explored. The role of the resection of the primary tumor in the setting of metastatic disease is examined with respect to survival benefit. Pathways of perioperative care which can accelerate post-surgical recovery, including enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) are examined. The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II and patients with stage III disease is examined, along with the role on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as well as with the biologic targeted agents cetuximab and bevacizumab. Lastly, the authors detail the postoperative surveillance schedules after surgical resection with respect to survival outcomes.

Surgical outcomes of colonic stents as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of high quality prospective and randomised controlled trials

Self-expanding metallic stent placement as a bridge to surgery has been reported as an alternative to emergency surgery for acute malignant colorectal obstruction. However, results from clinical trials and previous meta-analyses are conflicting. We carried out a meta-analysis to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes between emergency surgery and self-expanding metallic stents for malignant large bowel obstruction. Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched for prospective and randomised controlled trials. The outcomes of focus included 3- and 5-year overall and disease-free survival, overall tumour recurrence, overall complication and 30-day mortality rate, length of hospital and ICU stay, overall blood loss, number of patients requiring transfusion, total number of lymph nodes harvested, stoma and primary anastomosis rate. Twenty-seven studies were included with a total of 3894 patients. There was no significant difference in terms of 3-year and 5-year disease-free and overall survival. Stenting resulted in less blood loss (mean difference -234.72, P < 0.00001) and higher primary anastomosis rate (RR 1.25, P < 0.00001). For curative cases, bridge to surgery groups had lower 30-day mortality rate (RR 0.65, P = 0.01), lower overall complication rate (RR 0.65, P < 0.0001), more lymph nodes harvested (mean difference 2.51, P = 0.005), shorter ICU stay (mean difference -2.27, P = 0.02) and hospital stay (mean difference -7.24, 95% P < 0.0001). Compared to emergency surgery, self-expanding metallic stent interventions improve short-term surgical outcomes, especially in the curative setting, but have similar long-term oncological and survival outcomes.

Long-term outcomes of stent-related perforation in malignant colon obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The placement of self-expandable metallic stents as a bridge to surgery in malignant colon obstruction is concerning due to the long-term oncological results reported in recent published studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the oncological consequences of stent-related perforations in patients with malignant colon obstruction and potentially curable disease.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Ovid and ISRCTN Registry were searched, with no restrictions. We performed five meta-analyses to estimate the pooled effect sizes by using a random-effect model. The outcomes were global, locoregional and systemic recurrence rate and 3 and 5 year-survival rate depending on the presence or absence of stent-related perforation.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies (950 patients) were included. The overall rate of stent-related perforation was 8.9%. The global recurrence rate was significantly higher in stent-related perforation group (41.2 vs. 30.8%; OR 1.70; 95%CI: 1.02-2.84; p = 0.04). Locoregional recurrence rate was higher in the perforated group than in the non-perforated group (26.6 vs. 12.5%), with statistically significant differences (OR 2.41; 95% CI:1.33-4.34; p = 0.004). No significant differences were found in systemic recurrence rate (13.6 vs. 20.5%; OR 0.77; 95%CI: 0.35-1.7; p = 0.51); 3-year overall survival rate (65.4 vs. 74.8%; OR 0.63; 95% CI:0.29-1.39; p = 0.25) and 5-year overall survival rate (48.3 vs. 58.6%; OR 0.67; 95%CI: 0.27-1.65; p = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

Stent-related perforation is associated with an increased risk of global and locoregional recurrence. The successful placement of the stent as a bridge to surgery in the curative purpose of patients with obstructed colon cancer does not exclude the presence of underlying perforation, with the consequent danger of disease spread. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020152817.

Comparison of colonic stents, stomas and resection for obstructive left colon cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Emergency surgery (ES) is the standard-of-care for left-sided obstructing colon cancer, with self-expanding metallic stents (SEMSs) and diverting colostomies (DCs) being alternative approaches. The aim of this study was to review the short- and long-term outcomes of SEMS versus ES or DC.

METHODS

Embase and Medline were searched for articles comparing SEMS versus ES or DC. Primary outcomes were survival and recurrence rates. Secondary outcomes were peri- and postoperative outcomes. SEMS-specific outcomes include success and complication rates. Pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were estimated with DerSimonian and Laird random effects used to account for heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included, involving 15,224 patients in 8 randomized controlled trials and 25 observational studies. There were high technical and clinical success rates for SEMS, with low rates of complications. Our meta-analysis revealed increased odds of laparoscopic surgery and anastomosis, and decreased stoma creation with SEMS compared to ES. SEMS led to fewer complications, including anastomotic leak, wound infection, ileus, myocardial infarction, and improved 90-day in-hospital mortality. There were no significant differences in 3- and 5-year overall, cancer-specific and disease-free survival. SEMS, compared to DC, led to decreased rates of stoma creation, higher rates of ileus and reoperation, and led to longer hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

SEMS leads to better short-term outcomes but confers no survival advantage over ES. It is unclear whether SEMS has better short-term outcomes compared to DC. There is a lack of randomized trials with long-term outcomes for SEMS versus DC, hence results should be interpreted with caution.

Fluoroscopic Stenting as a Bridge to Surgery versus Emergency Management for Malignant Obstruction of the Colon

Aim

To investigate the feasibility of a SEMS (self-expandable metallic stent) as a bridge to surgery for malignant colonic obstruction.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 83 patients that were in accordance with inclusion criteria; of these, 33 patients that underwent fluoroscopy-guided SEMS placement followed by elective curative resection were classified as a SEMS group and 50 patients, who received emergency surgery (ES), were classified as an ES group. The clinicopathological characteristics, surgery-related parameters, complications, and three-year survival rate were compared between the two groups.

Results

No significant differences between the two groups were observed in any of the clinicopathologic characteristics except for higher preoperative absolute neutrophil count in the ES group (P < 0.001). Compared to the ES group, the SEMS group has significantly more cases, which featured a laparoscopic approach (72.7% vs. 14.0%, P < 0.001), lower overall stoma rate (0% vs. 34.0%, P < 0.001), and lower overall postoperative morbidity (27.3% vs. 56.0%, P=0.010). The oncological outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups in terms of three-year overall survival (P=0.125). The technical and clinical success rates of stent placement were 91.7% and 100%, respectively.

Conclusion

Patients treated with the stent-surgery approach had significant short-term superiorities and similar long-term outcomes, compared to patients who had emergency surgery alone. The SEMS is, therefore, safe and feasible as a bridge to surgery for malignant colonic obstruction.

Stenting versus surgery in obstructed malignant colorectal cancer-a review of short and long-term results

Obstructed colorectal cancers (CRCs) continue to be challenging to manage. Apart from surgical resection, the use of self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) has become increasingly popular. SEMS could potentially allow for the conversion of an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure, allow for the optimization of the patient's physiology, avoid the requirement for a stoma, as well as allow for a minimally-invasive approach to be adopted. This review article therefore highlights the evidence available in the literature pertaining to the use of SEMS in obstructed CRCs.

Stent as a bridge to surgery or immediate colectomy for malignant right colonic obstruction: propensity-scored, national database study

Background

The aim of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes of urgent colectomy and placement of a self-expanding metallic stent followed by colectomy for patients with malignant right colonic obstruction. Right-sided malignant obstruction is less common than left-sided. Stenting for malignant left colonic obstruction has been reported to reduce postoperative complications. However, the impact of stenting for malignant right colonic obstruction remains undefined.

Methods

The study included patients with right-sided malignant obstruction or stenosis undergoing colectomy between April 2012 and March 2017 identified from a nationwide database. Propensity score matching analysis was used to compare mortality and morbidity rates, proportion receiving a stoma and postoperative stay between urgent colectomy and stent groups.

Results

From 9572 patients, 1500 pairs were generated by propensity score matching. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the urgent colostomy and stent groups (1·6 versus 0·9 per cent respectively; P = 0·069). Complications were more common after urgent colectomy than stenting (22·1 versus 19·1 per cent; P = 0·042). Surgical-site infection was more likely with urgent colectomy (7·1 versus 4·4 per cent; P = 0·001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in anastomotic leakage (3·8 versus 2·6 per cent; P = 0·062). The proportion of patients needing a stoma was higher with urgent colectomy than primary treatment with stents (5·1 versus 1·7 per cent; P &lt; 0·001). Postoperative stay was longer after urgent colectomy (15 versus 13 days; P &lt; 0·001).

Conclusion

Stenting followed by colectomy in patients with malignant right colonic obstruction may provide more favourable perioperative outcomes than urgent colectomy.

Quasi-elective left colectomy after endoscopic colon stenting for obstructive cancer yields comparable oncologic outcome to full-elective operation

PURPOSE

Whether deferring surgery after endoscopic self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement for neoplastic stricture, and operating patients in a quasi-elective situation, may result in similar oncologic outcomes to elective operations is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the disease-free survival (DFS) rates of patients who underwent an interval colon resection after SEMS placement or an elective operation with comparable cancer stages.

METHODS

From a prospective dataset, we retrospectively selected patients with the following characteristics: (1) left-sided colon cancer and (2) cancer stage I to III. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) palliative surgery and (2) emergency operation. Then we stratified patients into two groups: (A) full-elective left colon resection and (B) quasi-elective left colon resection, defined as surgery performed after SEMS placement for obstructive colon cancer. DFS function was studied by the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

After 1:2 matching based on cancer stage, 106 patients of the group A were compared with 53 patients of group B. In each group, there were 9.4% of stage I, 39.4% of stage II, and 50.9% of stage III patients. The rate of technical failure in SEMS placement was 3.8%. After a mean follow-up of 54 months, 16 (15.1%) patients in the full-elective groups and 10 (18.9%) in the quasi-elective group experience cancer recurrence (log rank = 0.588). DFS curve did not reach the median value.

CONCLUSIONS

SEMS placement with interval colon resection for obstructive neoplastic strictures seems to provide similar long-term oncologic outcomes to operations performed in an elective setting when a low rate of technical failure is achieved.

Determining the difference in the efficacy and safety of self-expandable metallic stents as a bridge to surgery for obstructive colon cancer among patients in the CROSS 0 group and those in the CROSS 1 or 2 group: a pooled analysis of data from two Japanese prospective multicenter trials

PURPOSE

This study compared the feasibility and safety of endoscopic placement of self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) as a bridge to surgery (BTS) between patients with obstructive colorectal cancer (CRC) classified as ColoRectal Obstruction Scoring System (CROSS) 0 and those with CROSS 1 or 2.

METHODS

We conducted a post hoc analysis of two prospective, observational, single-arm multicenter clinical trials and performed a pooled analysis of the data. In total, 336 consecutive patients with malignant colorectal obstruction underwent SEMS placement. The primary endpoint was clinical success, defined as resolution of symptoms and radiological findings within 24 h. Secondary endpoints were technical success and adverse events.

RESULTS

High clinical (98.0% vs. 98.4%) and technical (96.7% vs. 97.8%) success rates were observed in both groups (CROSS 0 vs. CROSS 1 or 2). The adverse event rate was low. The mean stricture length was lower (3.8 ± 1.2 cm vs. 4.4 ± 1.8 cm) and laparoscopic surgery more common (56.7% vs 52.2%) in the CROSS 0 group than in the CROSS 1 and 2 group.

CONCLUSION

This study was the first to compare the degree of stricture in different CROSS groups and demonstrated comparable results with respect to the short-term efficacy and safety of SEMS placement as a BTS for obstructive CRC in CROSS 0, 1, and 2 patients.

Endoscopic Management of Malignant Colonic Obstruction

Advanced colorectal cancer can cause acute colonic obstruction, which is a life-threatening condition that requires emergency bowel decompression. Malignant colonic obstruction has traditionally been treated using emergency surgery, including primary resection or stoma formation. However, relatively high rates of complications, such as anastomosis site leakage, have been considered as major concerns for emergency surgery. Endoscopic management of malignant colonic obstruction using a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) was introduced 20 years ago and it has been used as a first-line palliative treatment. However, endoscopic treatment of malignant colonic obstruction using SEMSs as a bridge to surgery remains controversial owing to short-term complications and longterm oncological outcomes. In this review, the current status of and recommendations for endoscopic management using SEMSs for malignant colonic obstruction will be discussed.

Long-term survival analysis after endoscopic stenting as a bridge to surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction: comparison with emergency diverting colostomy

OBJECTIVE

The use of colorectal self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) as bridge therapy for malignant colorectal obstruction was first reported more than 20 years ago. However, its use remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to compare the long-term survival of patients with potentially resectable malignant colorectal obstruction who had undergone colorectal SEMS placement and emergency surgery.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analyses. Patients who received treatment between 2009 and 2017 were included. According to the eligibility criteria, 21 patients were included in the SEMS group and 67 patients were included in the surgical group..

RESULTS

The majority of the patients in the SEMS group were female (57.1%), whereas the majority of those in the surgical group were male (53.7%). The median follow-up time was 60 months for both groups with the same interquartile range of 60 months. There was no difference in the overall survival rate (log rank p=0.873) and disease-free survival rate (log rank p=0.2821) in the five-year analysis. There was no difference in local recurrence rates (38.1% vs. 22.4%, p=0.14) or distant recurrence rates (33.3% vs. 50.7%, p=0.16) in the SEMS and the surgical groups. Technical and clinical success rates of endoscopic stenting were 95.3% and 85.7%, respectively. There were no immediate adverse events (AEs). Severe AEs included perforation (14.3%), silent perforation (4.7%), reobstruction (14.3%), and bleeding (14.3%). Mild AEs included pain (42.8%), tenesmus (9.5%), and incontinence (4.76%). The limitations of this study was retrospective and was conducted at a single center.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in disease-free and overall survival rates were observed in the five-year analysis of patients with resectable colorectal cancer who had undergone SEMS placement or colostomy for the treatment of malignant colorectal obstruction. Patients in the SEMS group had a higher rate of primary anastomosis and a lower rate of temporary colostomy than did those in the surgery group.

Endoscopic stenting in colorectal cancer

Acute malignant large bowel obstruction presents as one of the few emergencies of colorectal cancer (CRC). Management of this condition can either be by (I) upfront surgery or (II) the use of self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) as a bridge to elective surgery. For patients with metastasis, the use of SEMS is reported to enable earlier commencement of chemotherapy. Although the use of SEMS in patients with acute malignant large bowel obstruction looks promising, it is plagued by its own set of complications and divided opinion over its long-term outcomes. Conflicting data are present, and definitive indication requires further evaluation and debate. This article will describe the typical presentation of patients with acute malignant large bowel obstruction. An introduction to the SEMS insertion procedural steps will be undertaken. Following which the article aims to review the safety profile of SEMS and the short- and long-term outcomes of SEMS in both the curative and palliative setting.

Long-term tumour outcomes of self-expanding metal stents as 'bridge to surgery' for the treatment of colorectal cancer with malignant obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To explore the long-term oncological results of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) as a surgical transition compared with those of simple emergency surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies involving long-term tumour outcomes comparing SEMS with emergency surgery was conducted. All studies included information on 3-year and 5-year survival rates, 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates, and local and overall recurrence rates; the results were expressed as odds ratios.

RESULTS

Overall, 24 articles and 2508 patients were included, including 5 randomised controlled trials, 3 prospective studies, and 16 retrospective studies. The 3-year survival rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.12, P = 0.05), 5-year survival rate (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.70-1.17, P = 0.67), 3-year DFS rate (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.91-1.42, P = 0.65), 5-year DFS rate (OR = 1.35, 95% CI 0.91-2.02, P = 0.17), overall recurrence rate (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77-1.41, P = 0.14), and local recurrence rate (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.84-2.23, P = 0.92) were determined. There was no significant difference between the randomised and observational studies in the subgroup analysis, and the 5-year survival rate was higher in studies with a stent placement success rate of ≥ 95%.

CONCLUSION

SEMS implantation was a viable alternative in malignant left colon obstruction as a transition to surgery; its long-term survival results, including 5-year DFS and overall survival, were equivalent to those of emergent surgery.

The long-term recurrence rate and survival of obstructive left-sided colon cancer patients: a stent as a bridge to surgery

BACKGROUND

a colonic stent as a bridge to elective surgery for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction is an alternative to the classical treatment. The aim of our study was to evaluate the recurrence rate as well as the morbidity and mortality of this treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

patients admitted to the Emergency Department with left-sided malignant colonic obstruction between June 2006 and January 2014 were analyzed in a retrospective observational study. Patients who underwent self-expanding metallic stent placement via endoscopy as a bridge to surgery were included. The observation period was performed until May 2017.

RESULTS

fifty-three patients were treated with a colonic stent as a bridge to surgery; nine patients died during the postoperative period. The deceased patients were more frequently male (100% in the deceased vs 62% in the non-deceased, p = 0.02), with a more advanced age (81.4 ± 5.1 vs 71.6 ± 10.8, p < 0.001), lower hemoglobin levels on admission (12.9 vs 13.6 p < 0.001), a greater number of leukocytes (12,918 vs 9,437, p < 0.001) and greater coagulopathy (INR 1.6 vs 1, p < 0.001). Eight patients had a distant relapse with a median disease-free survival of 19.1 months. The variables were compared according to the appearance of distant disease and the mean age was lower in patients with a recurrence (65.9 ± 11.3 vs 74.9 ± 9.9, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

the results of the use of a stent as a bridge to curative surgery in patients with obstructive left colon cancer in our hospital is comparable to previous studies.

Outcomes following colonic stenting for malignant left-sided bowel obstruction: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

PURPOSE

Malignant bowel obstruction is a common presentation and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Emergency resection is the traditional treatment modality. In recent years, colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery has become more prevalent. However, there is considerable debate surrounding its use. The aim of this review was to examine the technical and clinical success of self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) as a bridge to surgery for obstructing colorectal tumours.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials using PubMed, Cochrane and SCOPUS databases. Included studies must have compared outcomes in SEMS as a bridge to surgery with those proceeding straight to emergency resection.

RESULTS

A total of 1245 studies were identified. After removal of duplicates and non-relevant studies, we identified seven articles which met the predefined criteria. This review observed that 81% of SEMS were technically successful, with 76% of patients having restoration of gastrointestinal function. Iatrogenic perforation rate was 5%. One-fifth of patients required emergency surgery following stent placement, and permanent stoma rate was 8.7%.

CONCLUSION

This study observed that SEMS as a bridge to surgery is associated with good technical and clinical success, with low rates of perforation and permanent stoma. SEMS should be part of the treatment armamentarium for obstructing colorectal neoplasms, but careful patient selection and institutional expertise are important factors for success.

Safety and efficacy of metal stents for malignant colonic obstruction in patients treated with bevacizumab

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to examine clinical outcomes and adverse events (AEs) of self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) in the management of malignant colonic obstruction (MCO).

METHODS

Patients with SEMSs for MCO treated at our institution from 2007 to 2016 were included. Clinical success was defined as successful oral intake after the procedure and technical success as stent deployment across the stricture in the desired location.

RESULTS

Of 199 patients, the mean age was 58, 54% were men, and 99% had stage IV cancer. MCO etiology was colorectal cancer in 82% and extrinsic compression in 17%. Technical success was achieved in 99.5% and clinical success in 89%. The SEMSs were palliative in 97% and were a bridge to surgery in 4%. MCO occurred in the left side of the colon in 90%, transverse in 4.5%, and ascending colon in 5.5%. SEMSs were placed in curved segments in 30% and straight segments in 70%. Tandem SEMSs were required in 27 patients. Forty-six patients had 48 AEs (24%), including 2% periprocedure, 15% postprocedure, and 83% after 72 hours. Stent-related AEs (n = 25) included persistent obstruction (n = 14), occlusion (n = 10), and failure of expansion (n = 1). Procedural AEs (n = 23) included minor bleeding (n = 2), perforations (n = 4), abdominal pain (n = 12), stent migration (n = 4), and respiratory insufficiency (n = 1). Repeat procedures were performed in 21 of 46 patients. After SEMSs, 48 patients underwent surgery, including resection with primary anastomosis (n = 8), resection with definitive stoma (n = 18), and diverting stoma without resection (n = 19). Mean time to surgery after SEMS placement was 175 days. Postsurgical AEs occurred in those with resections (leak, 2; infection, 2). Of 104 receiving bevacizumab, 22% had AEs, including 1 perforation compared with 3 in the nonbevacizumab group (P = .549). Mean overall survival was 5.6 months. Extrinsic compression and curved strictures were associated with poor clinical success by univariate analysis and etiology (noncolonic with poor outcome) by multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

SEMSs for MCO has high technical but suboptimal clinical success. Curved strictures and extrinsic compression are associated with poor outcomes. The perforation rate was not higher in the bevacizumab compared with the nonbevacizumab group, although this should be further validated in a larger population.

Acute abdominal obstruction: Colon stent or emergency surgery? An evidence-based review

According to the American Cancer Society and Colorectal Cancer Statistics 2017, colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death in the world in 2018. Previous studies demonstrated that 8%-29% of patients with primary CRC present malignant colonic obstruction (MCO). In the past, emergency surgery has been the primary treatment for MCO, although morbidity and surgical mortality rates are higher in these settings than in elective procedures. In the 1990s, self-expanding metal stents appeared and was a watershed in the treatment of patients in gastrointestinal surgical emergencies. The studies led to high expectations because the use of stents could prevent surgical intervention, such as colostomy, leading to lower morbidity and mortality, possibly resulting in higher quality of life. This review was designed to provide present evidence of the indication, technique, outcomes, benefits, and risks of these treatments in acute MCO through the analysis of previously published studies and current guidelines.

Urgent Management of Obstructing Colorectal Cancer: Divert, Stent, or Resect?

Despite the availability of effective colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies, up to 10% of CRC patients present with obstructive symptoms as the first sign of disease. For patients with acute or subacute malignant obstruction that requires urgent intervention, treatment options include endoscopic stenting as a bridge to surgery, one-stage surgical resection and anastomosis, or diverting ostomy which may or may not be followed by later tumor resection and stoma closure. However, to date, there is no consensus guideline for the optimal approach to manage malignant colorectal obstruction. This article aims to illustrate clinical scenarios in palliative, curative, and potentially curative settings, and delineate the key factors to be considered when making an individualized decision in order to determine the optimal treatment.

Is bridge to surgery stenting a safe alternative to emergency surgery in malignant colonic obstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials

BACKGROUND

Despite studies showing superior results in terms of reduced stoma rate and higher primary anastomosis rate, the safety of bridge to surgery stenting (BTS stent) for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction, especially in oncological terms, remains a concern.

AIM

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether BTS stent is a safe alternative to emergency surgery (EmS).

METHODS

Randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing BTS stent and EmS for left-sided colonic obstruction caused by primary cancer of the colon, up to Sep 2018, were retrieved from the Pubmed, Embase database, clinical trials registry of U. S. National Library of Medicine and BMJ and Google Search.

RESULTS

There were seven eligible RCTs, involving a total of 448 patients. Compared to EmS, BTS stent had a significantly lower risk of overall complications (RR = 0.605; 95% CI 0.382-0.958; p = 0.032). However, the overall recurrence rate was higher in the BTS stent group (37.0% vs. 25.9%; RR = 1.425; 95% CI 1.002-2.028; p = 0.049). BTS stent significantly increased the risk of systemic recurrence (RR = 1.627; 95% CI 1.009-2.621; p = 0.046). This did not translate into a significant difference in terms of 3-year disease-free survival or 3-year overall survival.

CONCLUSION

BTS stent is associated with a lower rate of overall morbidities than EmS. However, BTS stent was associated with a greater chance of recurrence, especially systemic recurrence. Clinicians ought to be aware of the pros and cons of different interventions and tailor treatments for patients suffering from left-sided obstructing cancer of the colon.

2017 WSES guidelines on colon and rectal cancer emergencies: obstruction and perforation

ᅟ

Obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer represent challenging matters in terms of diagnosis, life-saving strategies, obstruction resolution and oncologic challenge. The aims of the current paper are to update the previous WSES guidelines for the management of large bowel perforation and obstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) and to develop new guidelines on obstructive right colon carcinoma (ORCC).

Methods

The literature was extensively queried for focused publication until December 2017. Precise analysis and grading of the literature has been performed by a working group formed by a pool of experts: the statements and literature review were presented, discussed and voted at the Consensus Conference of the 4th Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) held in Campinas in May 2017.

Results

CT scan is the best imaging technique to evaluate large bowel obstruction and perforation. For OLCC, self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), when available, offers interesting advantages as compared to emergency surgery; however, the positioning of SEMS for surgically treatable causes carries some long-term oncologic disadvantages, which are still under analysis. In the context of emergency surgery, resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) is preferable to Hartmann’s procedure, whenever the characteristics of the patient and the surgeon are permissive. Right-sided loop colostomy is preferable in rectal cancer, when preoperative therapies are predicted.

With regards to the treatment of ORCC, right colectomy represents the procedure of choice; alternatives, such as internal bypass and loop ileostomy, are of limited value.

Clinical scenarios in the case of perforation might be dramatic, especially in case of free faecal peritonitis. The importance of an appropriate balance between life-saving surgical procedures and respect of oncologic caveats must be stressed. In selected cases, a damage control approach may be required.

Medical treatments including appropriate fluid resuscitation, early antibiotic treatment and management of co-existing medical conditions according to international guidelines must be delivered to all patients at presentation.

Conclusions

The current guidelines offer an extensive overview of available evidence and a qualitative consensus regarding management of large bowel obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer.

Long-term Outcomes of One Stage Surgery Using Transanal Colorectal Tube for Acute Colorectal Obstruction of Stage II/III Distal Colon Cancer

Purpose

Since oncological outcomes of transanal colorectal tube (TCT) placement, an endoscopic treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) with acute colorectal obstruction (ACO), remain unknown, this study analyzed long-term outcomes of TCT placement for stage II/III CRC with ACO.

Materials and Methods

Data were retrospectively reviewed from consecutive patients with distal stage II/III CRC who underwent surgery between January 2007 and December 2011 at two Japanese hospitals. One hospital conducted emergency surgery and the other performed TCT placement as the standard treatment for all CRCs with ACO. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to adjust baseline characteristics between two groups.

Results

Among 754 patients with distal stage II/III CRC, 680 did not have ACO (non-ACO group) and 74 had ACO (ACO group). The PS matching between both hospitals identified 234 pairs in the non-ACO group and 23 pairs in the ACO group. In the non-ACO group, the surgical quality was equivalent between the two institutions, with no significant differences in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). In the ACO group, the rate of primary resection/anastomosis was higher in the TCT group than in the surgery group (87.0% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.001). No significant differences were noted between the surgery and the TCT groups in OS (5-year OS, 61.9% vs. 51.5%; p=0.490) and DFS (5-year DFS, 45.9% vs. 38.3%; p=0.658).

Conclusion

TCT placement can achieve similar long-term outcomes to emergency surgery, with a high rate of primary resection/anastomosis for distal stage II/III colon cancer with ACO.

Colonic stent versus emergency surgery as treatment of malignant colonic obstruction in the palliative setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Malignant colonic obstruction (MCO) due to CRC occurs in 8 % to 29 % of patients.The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing colonic SEMS versus emergency surgery (ES) for MCO in palliative patients. This was the first systematic review that included only randomized controlled trials in the palliative setting.

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the PRISMA method using online databases with no restriction regarding idiom or year of publication. Data were extracted by two authors according to a predefined data extraction form. Primary outcomes were: mean survival, 30-day adverse events, 30-day mortality and length of hospital stay. Stoma formation, length of stay on intensive care unit (ICU), technical success and clinical success were recorded for secondary outcomes. Technical success (TS) was defined as successful stent placement across the stricture and its deployment. Clinical success (CS) was defined as adequate bowel decompression within 48 h of stent insertion without need for re-intervention.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from four RCT studies totaling 125 patients. The 30-day mortality was 6.3 % for SEMS-treated patients and 6.4 % for ES-treated patients, with no difference between groups (RD: - 0.00, 95 % CI [-0.10, 0.10], I 2 : 0 %). Mean survival was 279 days for SEMS and 244 days for ES, with no significant difference between groups (RD: 20.14, 95 % CI: [-42.92, 83.21], I 2 : 44 %). Clinical success was 96 % in the ES group and 86.1 % in the SEMS group (RD: - 0.13, 95 % CI [-0.23, - 0.02], I 2 : 51 %). Permanent stoma rate was 84 % in the ES group and 14.3 % in the SEMS group (RR: 0.19, 95 % CI: [0.11, 0.33], I 2 : 28 %). Length of hospital stay was shorter in SEMS group (RD: - 5.16, 95 % CI: [-6.71, - 3.61], I 2 : 56 %). There was no significant difference between groups regarding adverse events (RD 0.18, 95 % CI: [-0.19, 0.54;]) neither regarding ICU stay. (RD: - 0.01, 95 % CI: [-0.08, 0.05], I 2 : 7 %). The most common stent-related complication was perforation (42.8 % of all AE).

CONCLUSION

Mortality, mean survival, length of stay in the ICU and early complications of both methods were similar. SEMS may be an alternative to surgery with the advantage of early hospital discharge and lower risk of permanent stoma.

Ten-year survival after endoscopic stent placement as a bridge to surgery in obstructing colon cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Self-expandable metal stents are used increasingly in the treatment of obstructing colorectal cancer (CRC). Although endoscopic colon stenting is widely accepted in palliation, disagreement exists about its role in a curative setting. This study aims to describe long-term survival data in a large patient group treated with colon stenting as a bridge to surgery for CRC.

METHODS

This prospective study included 97 patients who presented in a Belgian hospital between 1998 and 2013 with obstructing, although potentially curable, CRC. All patients underwent endoscopic stenting as a bridge to surgery. Procedure-related adverse events and long-term follow-up data were retrospectively collected and compared with the CRC mortality in Belgium in the same time span.

RESULTS

Overall survival in this observational cohort did not differ significantly from survival in all Belgian patients with CRC in the same period (P = .14). One-year, 5-year, and 10-year survival rates were similar in both groups (95.9% vs 79.0%; 54.7% vs 51.2%; 41.0% vs 35.6%, respectively). The technical success rate was 94.8%. Seventy-three patients did not experience any adverse event. Stent migration occurred in 9 patients, whereas micro-perforations and macro-perforations were observed in 14 patients, without influence on survival. Incidence rates of peritoneal metastases did not differ between patients with and without any type of perforation (22.2% vs 15.2%, respectively; P = .47). The type of stent influenced the overall adverse event risk, mainly driven by a significant increase in stent migration in case of Wallstent enteral (Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick, Mass).

CONCLUSIONS

Colon stenting before surgery is effective and did not worsen the survival outcome in patients with obstructing CRC who were treated with curative intent, which affirms the role for stenting as a bridge to surgery.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a patient with severe aortic valve stenosis, colon cancer, and obstructive ileus: A case report

An 82-year-old woman with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) developed an obstructive ileus caused by colon cancer. Colectomy was considered a high-risk surgery due to both the severe AS and obstructive ileus. Therefore, we planned placement of a colonic stent for the obstructive ileus. After stenting, we performed transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) instead of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), because of the risk of bleeding during extracorporeal circulation and the perioperative risk of AVR (Society of Thoracic Surgery predicted risk of mortality: 7.4%). Successful colonic stenting and TAVI allowed a safer colectomy. The period from TAVI to colectomy was 12 days. TAVI could be useful for symptomatic severe AS in high-risk patients prior to non-cardiac surgery, especially for malignant tumors. <Learning objective: In patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, aortic valve replacement is recommended prior to non-cardiac surgery. However, in patients with a malignancy, the complications due to the tumor and the risk of extracorporeal circulation remain a challenge in surgical aortic valve replacement. In such cases, transcatheter aortic valve implantation may be a useful option to reduce the incidence of complications and the time to surgery for the malignancy.>.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of stent as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery in malignant left side colonic obstructions: a meta-analysis

Background

The placement of a metallic stent as a bridge to surgery (SBTS) could represents an option for the treatment of left-sided malignant colonic obstruction in centres with adequate skills. Several meta-analyses demonstrated better short-term outcomes after SBTS when compared with emergency surgery (ES); however, some studies reported a higher local recurrence rate. The aim of the present review is to investigate the long-term outcomes of stent bridge to surgery as compared to ES.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to retrieve studies comparing long-term oncologic outcomes of SBTS and ES. Local and overall recurrence rate, overall and disease-free survival were retrieved and results were expressed as risk ratios.

Results

Seventeen studies and a total of 1,333 patients were included in the analysis. No significant differences were reported in recurrence rate [risk ratio (RR) =1.11; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.84-1.47, P=0.47], 3-year mortality (RR =0.90; 95% CI: 0.73-1.12, P=0.34) and 5-year mortality (RR =1.00; 95% CI: 0.82-1.22, P=0.99). There were no differences among randomized and observational studies.

Conclusions

SBTS has similar long-term oncologic outcomes to ES and in centres with appropriate skill should be considered the best treatment option for left-sided malignant colonic obstructions.