Stenting of the proximal colon in patients with malignant large bowel obstruction: techniques and outcomes

Self-expandable metallic stent as bridge to surgery vs. emergency resection in obstructive right-sided colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Emergency resection is common for malignant right-sided obstructive colon cancer. As there is evidence showing a potential benefit of self-expandable metal stents as a bridge to surgery, a new debate has been initiated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare self-expandable metal stents with emergency resection in right-sided obstructive colon cancer.

DATA SOURCE

A systematic search was conducted accessing Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting either emergency surgery or stent placement in right-sided obstructive colon cancer were included.

INTERVENTION

Stent or emergency resection in right-sided obstructive colon cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Morbidity rate, mortality rate, stoma rate, laparoscopic resection rate, anastomotic insufficiency rate, success rate of stent.

RESULTS

A total of 6343 patients from 16 publications were analyzed. The stent success rate was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87 to 0.95) with perforation of 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.06). Emergency resection was performed laparoscopically at a rate of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.09 to 0.24). Primary anastomosis rate in emergency resection was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97) with an anastomotic insufficiency rate of 0.07 (95% CI, 0.04 to 0.11). The mortality rate after emergency resection was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.09). Primary anastomosis and anastomotic insufficiency rate were similar between the two groups (RR: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.1; p = 0.56 and RR: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.93; p = 0.33). The mortality rate in emergency resection was higher compared to stent (RR: 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 10.89, p = 0.016).

LIMITATION

No randomized controlled trials are available.

CONCLUSION

Stent is a safe and successful alternative to emergency resection and may increase the rate of minimally invasive surgery. Emergency resection, however, remains safe and did not result in higher rate of anastomotic insufficiency. Further high-quality comparative studies are warranted to assess long-term outcomes.

Outcomes according to treatment modalities as a bridge to curative surgery for malignant obstruction of the proximal colon: stent versus stoma

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The optimal treatment for acute malignant obstruction of the proximal colon (MOPC, proximal to the splenic flexure) remains challenging. Emergency resection, the traditional modality for MOPC, has shown significantly high mortality and morbidity rates, according to recent studies. This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of stent vs stoma as a bridge to curative surgery for MOPC.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 72 patients who underwent endoscopic placement of a self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) or loop ileostomy for MOPC at six referral centers between January 2011 and July 2021. Clinical and pathological characteristics, procedure-related complications, and long-term mortality rates after curative surgery were analyzed.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up period of 32 months, 30 patients (41.7%) underwent ileostomy preferentially for more proximal cancer, complete obstruction, and advanced tumor stage compared to the SEMS group. No difference was found in procedure-related complications, but five deaths were observed after ileostomy. Survival analysis for 5-year mortality after curative surgery showed no significant difference between the bridge modalities (log-rank p = 0.253).

CONCLUSION

In this study, SEMS as a bridge to surgery showed relatively safe results in terms of post-procedural mortality. However, these results should be considered when performing ileostomy in patients with more advanced malignant obstruction.

Comparison of Short-term Outcomes of a Self-expandable Metallic Stent as a Bridge to Laparoscopic Surgery between Right- and Left-sided Obstructive Colorectal Cancers: A Retrospective Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

Few studies have compared the tumor-site-based postoperative short-term outcomes of a bridge to surgery using self-expandable metallic stents. This study compared the perioperative outcomes following stent placement between right- and left-sided obstructive colorectal cancers, focusing on patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

This study included 127 patients with stage I-IV obstructive colorectal cancer (right-sided, n = 25 [19.7%]; left-sided, n = 102 [80.3%]) who underwent laparoscopic-assisted surgery following stent placement between May 2012 and September 2021. We compared the postoperative complication rates and the success rates of stent placement.

RESULTS

The clinical success rate was not significantly different (92% vs. 97.1%, P = 0.254). The rates of all-grade complications (36% vs. 16.7%, P = 0.05) and postoperative ileus or small-bowel obstruction (20% vs. 2%, P = 0.003) were significantly higher in the right-sided group. The rates of the Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ III complications (8% vs. 6.9%, P = 1) and the median durations of postoperative hospital stay (8 days vs. 8 days, P = 1) were not significantly different. On multivariate analysis, right-sided colon cancer was an independent risk factor for postoperative ileus or small-bowel obstruction (odds ratio [OR]: 16.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.42-112, P = 0.004) but not for all grades of complications (OR: 2.63, 95% CI: 0.976-7.09, P = 0.056).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the rates of clinical success, postoperative Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ III severe complications, and postoperative hospital stay were comparable, the bridge to surgery following stent placement for right-sided obstructive colon cancer raises concerns about ileus or small-bowel obstruction.

Case report: Stent-first strategy as a potential approach in the management of malignant right-sided colonic obstruction with cardiovascular risks

In obstructing left-sided colonic or rectal cancer, endoscopic stent placement with the purpose of decompression and bridge to elective colon resection has been widely utilized and accepted. However, in malignant right-sided colonic obstruction, stent placement prior to colectomy is still highly controversial, due to lower clinical success and high anastomotic leak. We report a case of malignant right-sided colonic obstruction based on the radiological findings of irregular thickening of ascending colon wall and dilation of proximal large bowel on enhanced computed tomography scan. The 72-year-old woman presented with obvious abdominal distension. Due to concerning cardiovascular complications as intermittent chest pain and a long history of type 2 diabetes, a three-step therapeutic plan was instigated. Initially, a self-expandable metallic stent was placed palliatively to relieve the bowel obstruction. Consecutively, coronary angiography was performed, and two coronary stents were implanted to alleviate more than 80% stenosis of two main coronary arteries. One month later, laparoscopic radical resection of right colon and lymphadenectomy were successfully performed, with a blood loss less than 50 millimeters and a harvest of 29 lymph nodes, 1 being positive. The patient was discharged one week postoperatively with no complications, and received adjuvant chemotherapy one month later. During a follow-up of more than one year, the patient was in complete remission with no recurrence and cardiovascular events. In patients presenting with malignant right-sided colonic obstruction and peril of high cardiovascular risks, we propose colonic and coronary stent-first strategy to emergency surgery as a potential approach so as to ensure sufficient cardiovascular preparation improving perioperative safety. Moreover, the anatomical location of the tumor would be significantly achievable thus granting high-quality radical colon resection and lymphadenectomy.

Comparison of colonic stenting and stoma creation as palliative treatment for incurable malignant colonic obstruction

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is a favorable therapeutic option for patients with incurable malignant colonic obstruction (MCO). However, their long-term efficacy and safety compared with those of stoma creation have not been well investigated. This study aimed to compare these long-term outcomes between these two techniques in patients with incurable MCO.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort included patients with incurable MCO with SEMS insertion (n = 105) and stoma creation (n = 97) between January 2009 and December 2019. The primary outcomes were patency after the procedure and 1-year re-intervention rates.

RESULTS

The patency of the SEMS group was lower than that of the stoma group (88.9 vs 93.2% at 6 months, 84.1 vs 90.5% at 12 months, and 65.8 vs 90.5% at 18 months; log-rank test, P = 0.024), but 1-year re-intervention rates were not different between the groups (10 vs 8%, P = 0.558). The median patency durations were 190 days for SEMS insertion and 231 days for stoma creation. Majority (84%) of SEMS patients did not require any re-intervention until death. The early complication rate did not differ between the groups (P = 0.377), but SEMS insertion had fewer late minor complications than stoma creation (5 vs 22%, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

SEMS insertion is a safe and effective treatment for patients with incurable MCO. Although SEMS insertion had a lower patency than stoma creation, especially after 1 year, the 1-year re-intervention rates were not different, and SEMS durability was sufficient in most patients.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Optimal Management of the Malignant Alimentary Tract Obstruction: Expert Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The purpose of this expert review is to describe the current methodologies available to manage malignant alimentary tract obstructions as well the evidence behind the various methods (including their efficacy and safety), indications, and appropriate timing of interventions.

METHODS

This is not a formal systematic review but is based on a review of the literature to provide best practice advice statements. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation is carried out. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: For all patients with alimentary tract obstruction, the decision about specific interventions should be made in a multidisciplinary setting including oncologists, surgeons, and endoscopists and take into account the characteristics of the obstruction, patient's expectations, prognosis, expected subsequent therapies, and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer and who are potential candidates for resection or chemoradiation, clinicians should not routinely insert a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) without multidisciplinary review because of high rates of stent migration, higher morbidity and mortality, and potentially lower R0 (microscopically negative margins) resection rates. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are potential candidates for resection and who have concerns of malnutrition, clinicians may consider the use of enteral feeding tubes (via nasogastric or percutaneous route). Clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of abdominal wall tumor seeding as well as making subsequent gastric conduit formation difficult with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are not candidates for resection, clinicians should consider either SEMS insertion or brachytherapy as sole therapy or in combination. Clinicians should not consider the use of laser therapy or photodynamic therapy because of the lack of evidence of better outcomes and superior alternatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: For patients with malignant esophageal obstruction who are undergoing SEMS placement, clinicians should use a fully covered or partially covered SEMS and not an uncovered SEMS, with consideration of a stent-anchoring/fixation method. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who have a life expectancy greater than 2 months, have good functional status, and who are surgically fit, surgical gastrojejunostomy should be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are undergoing surgical gastrojejunostomy, a laparoscopic approach is favored over an open approach because of lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are not candidates for gastrojejunostomy (surgical or endoscopic ultrasound-guided), clinicians should consider the insertion of an enteral stent. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Enteral stents should not be used in patients with multiple luminal obstructions or severely impaired gastric motility because of the limited benefit in these scenarios. Clinicians can consider placement of a venting gastrostomy in these patients. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Depending on the experience of the endoscopist, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy is an acceptable alternative to surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral stent placement. Clinicians should be aware that there are currently no dedicated Food and Drug Administration-approved devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are candidates for resection, insertion of SEMS is a reasonable choice as a "bridge to surgery" to allow for one-stage, elective resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are not candidates for resection, either SEMS placement or a diverting colostomy are reasonable choices depending on the patient's goals and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: SEMS is a reasonable option for patients with proximal (or right-sided) malignant obstructions, both as a "bridge to surgery" and in the palliative setting. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: SEMS placement is a reasonable alternative for patients with extracolonic malignancy who are not candidates for surgery, although their placement is more technically challenging, clinical success rates are more variable, and complications (including stent migration) are more frequent.

[Palliative endoscopy]

Endoscopy is the leading method in the diagnostics of gastrointestinal malignancies. With the increasing incidences of various tumor entities, a palliative treatment situation is already present in many patients despite an increasing number of screening strategies. Palliative endoscopy can make an essential contribution to alleviation of tumor-related symptoms, such as dysphagia, malnutrition, cholestasis, ileus and pain. Various approaches can be offered to safeguard the nutrition, e.g. percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (PEJ), for maintenance of the gastrointestinal passage (stents) and secretion drainage or to drain congested hollow organs. Furthermore, in cases of inaccessibility or impassability of stenoses due to tumors, endosonographically assisted punctures offer the possibility to guarantee new drainage options or continuities by stent placement. In all interventions possible contraindications and complications must be taken into account.

Trends and Factors Associated With Receipt of Upfront Surgery for Stage II to III Rectal Adenocarcinoma in the United States, 2006 to 2016

INTRODUCTION

The German rectal study published in 2004 established neoadjuvant chemoradiation as a standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer and current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines endorse several preoperative regimens. Upfront surgery, however, is considered substandard care. In the era of evolving treatment paradigms for locally advanced rectal cancer, we sought to assess trends and predictors of receipt of upfront surgery for stage II to III rectal cancer.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients diagnosed with clinical stage II to III rectal adenocarcinoma between 2006 and 2016. Multivariable logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios and associated 95% confidence intervals of receipt of upfront definitive surgery. The timing of upfront surgery relative to day of diagnosis and rate of receipt of adjuvant therapy were also estimated.

RESULTS

Among 51,562 patients, 6411 (12.4%) were treated with upfront surgery, which decreased from 16.7% in 2006 to 7.1% in 2016 (P<0.001). The majority of patients (5737 [89.5%]) had definitive surgery after initial diagnostic biopsy. Variables associated with receipt of upfront surgery included female sex, older age, higher comorbidity score, and treatment at a community cancer center (P<0.001). Among those receiving upfront surgery, 2904 (45.3%) received adjuvant radiation therapy, 3218 (50.2%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, and 2559 (39.9%) received no further treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of patients with clinical stage II to III rectal cancer treated with upfront surgery has steadily declined since 2006, however, certain subgroups appear to remain at greater risk. Further research is needed to better elucidate patient and systems-level factors contributing to these disparities in care.

Self-expandable metallic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery versus emergency surgery for acute malignant right-sided colorectal obstruction

Background

The use of a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) as a bridge to surgery has increased for patients with obstructing colorectal cancer. However, relatively few reports have compared SEMS as a bridge to elective surgery for acute malignant obstruction of the right-sided colon (MORC) vs. emergency surgery (ES). This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of elective surgery after SEMS placement vs. ES for patients (including stage IV cases) with acute MORC.

Methods

Patients with acute MORC who underwent radical resection for a primary tumour from July 2008 to November 2016 at Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University were retrospectively enrolled. Postoperative short-term outcomes, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between the SEMS and ES groups.

Results

In total, 107 patients with acute MORC (35 in the SEMS group and 72 in the ES group) were included for analysis. The Intensive Care Unit admission rate was lower (11.4% vs. 34.7%, P = 0.011), the incidence of complications was reduced (11.4% vs. 29.2%, P = 0.042), and the postoperative length of hospitalisation was significantly shorter (8.23 ± 6.50 vs. 11.18 ± 6.71 days, P = 0.033) for the SEMS group. Survival curves showed no significant difference in PFS (P = 0.506) or OS (P = 0.989) between groups. Also, there was no significant difference in PFS and OS rates between patients with stage II and III colon cancer. After colectomy for synchronous liver metastases among stage IV patients, the hepatectomy rates for the SEMS and ES groups were 85.7% and 14.3%, respectively (P = 0.029). The hazard ratio for colectomy alone vs. combined resection was 3.258 (95% CI 0.858–12.370; P = 0.041).

Conclusion

Stent placement offers significant advantages in terms of short-term outcomes and comparable prognoses for acute MORC patients. For synchronous liver metastases, SEMS placement better prepares the patient for resection of the primary tumour and liver metastasis, which contribute to improved survival.

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.

Endoscopic Self-Expandable Metallic Stent Insertion without Fluoroscopic Guidance Is Feasible and Safe for Acute Colonic Obstruction Caused by Colorectal Cancer

Aims

Endoscopic self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) insertion for acute colonic obstruction caused by colorectal cancer (CRC) is always performed under fluoroscopic guidance. This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of an endoscopic stenting procedure without fluoroscopic guidance.

Methods

A total of 36 patients with an acute colonic obstruction caused by CRC underwent endoscopic SEMS insertion using a colonoscope without fluoroscopic guidance, followed by analyses of the technical and clinical success and short-term complications.

Results

Total technical success rate and clinical success rate were 91.7% and 86.1%, respectively. The mean procedure time was 21.2 ± 10.3 minutes. There was no stent dislodgement. One case of hematochezia and two cases of tenesmus occurred in patients with left-sided complete obstructions. No other short-term complications occurred. Procedure time, technical success, and clinical success rate were 16.3 ± 9.4 minutes, 93.1%, and 89.6% for left-sided obstructions, respectively, and were 26.8 ± 10.7 minutes, 85.7%, and 71.4% for right-sided obstructions, respectively. For complete obstructions, procedure time, technical success, and clinical success rate were 22.5 ± 8.9 minutes, 90%, and 83.3%, respectively. In the incomplete cases, procedure time, technical success, and clinical success were 13.5 ± 6.7 minutes, 100%, and 100%, respectively. Technical success, clinical success, and short-term complications were not differed between lesion locations and degrees.

Conclusions

This simple technique is feasible and safe for palliation of acute colonic obstruction caused by CRC.

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.

Comparison of decompression tubes with metallic stents for the management of right-sided malignant colonic obstruction

BACKGROUND

Emergency surgical resection is a standard treatment for right-sided malignant colonic obstruction; however, the procedure is associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity. Although a bridge to surgery can be created to obviate the need for emergency surgery, its effects on long-term outcomes and the most practical management strategies for right-sided malignant colonic obstruction remain unclear.

AIM

To determine the appropriate management approach for right-sided malignant colonic obstruction.

METHODS

Forty patients with right-sided malignant colonic obstruction who underwent curative resection from January 2007 to April 2017 were included in the study. We compared the perioperative and long-term outcomes of patients who received bridges to surgery established using decompression tubes and those created using self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS). The primary outcome was the overall survival duration (OS) and the secondary endpoints were the disease-free survival (DFS) duration and the preoperative and postoperative morbidity rates. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

There were 21 patients in the decompression tube group and 19 in the SEMS group. There were no significant differences in the perioperative morbidity rates of the two groups. The OS rate was significantly higher in the decompression tube group than in the SEMS group (5-year OS rate; decompression tube 79.5%, SEMS 32%, P = 0.043). Multivariate analysis revealed that the bridge to surgery using a decompression tube was significantly associated with the OS (hazard ratio, 17.41; P = 0.004). The 3-year DFS rate was significantly higher in the decompression tube group than in the SEMS group (68.9% vs 45.9%; log-rank test, P = 0.032). A propensity score–adjusted analysis also demonstrated that the prognosis was significantly better in the decompression tube group than in the SEMS group.

CONCLUSION

The bridge to surgery using trans-nasal and trans-anal decompression tubes for right-sided malignant colonic obstruction is safe and may improve long-term outcomes.

Comparison of the long-term outcomes of the self-expandable metallic stent and transanal decompression tube for obstructive colorectal cancer

AIM

Endoscopic decompression using the self-expandable metallic colonic stent (SEMS) or transanal decompression tube (TDT) can convert emergency surgery into elective one-stage surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer (OCRC). The aim of the present study was to clarify the effect of SEMS and TDT on long-term oncological outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 76 consecutive pathological stage II and III OCRC patients who were inserted with SEMS or TDT as a bridge to curative surgery between 2009 and 2018.

RESULTS

There were 53 SEMS cases and 23 TDT cases. The tumor was located in the left colon in 58 cases and in the right colon in 18 cases. The interval between the decompression and the surgery was 16.5 days in the SEMS group and 13.0 days in the TDT group (P = 0.09). Technical and clinical success rates were 100% and 100% for SEMS, and 95% and 91% for TDT, respectively. Stoma was created in four patients in the SEMS group, and in five in the TDT group (P = 0.08). Three-year overall survival rates of the SEMS and TDT groups were 82% and 86% (P = 0.94), and disease-free survival rates were 68% and 62% (P = 0.79), respectively. The recurrence pattern was not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

This study found no statistically significant differences between the effects of SEMS and TDT for OCRC as a bridge to surgery on long-term outcomes.

Percutaneous Antegrade Colonic Stent Insertion Using a Proximal Trans-peritoneal Colopexy Technique

INTRODUCTION

Conventionally, colonic stents are inserted with a retrograde trans-anal approach-however, stenting of right-sided or proximal transverse colon lesions may pose a challenge due to tortuosity or long distances. We report three successful cases of percutaneous antegrade colonic stenting in patients using a proximal trans-peritoneal colopexy technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three patients underwent a proximal trans-peritoneal colopexy technique for antegrade colonic stent placement. The patients included three males, ages 89, 92 and 55, who were unsuitable for conventional methods. All patients had a colopexy with the aid of three gastropexy sutures performed under CT or fluoroscopic guidance and subsequent colonic access, followed by the crossing lesion and subsequent deployment of an uncovered colonic stent. A 10-Fr pigtail catheter was exchanged for the sheath, capped and left in place along with the colopexy suture anchors.

RESULTS

Percutaneous antegrade colonic stent placement was technically successful in all patients with no complications. Follow-up at 10 days, a tubogram confirmed stent patency. The pigtail drain and suture anchors were subsequently removed.

CONCLUSION

Antegrade colonic stenting with the use of a three point colopexy is a straightforward well-tolerated procedure and is a useful technique in a cohort of patients in whom conventional stenting has failed/is unsuitable. Additionally, we believe we have reported the first two cases involving transverse colon access for stenting.

Impact on surgical and oncological results of the use of colonic stents as a bridge to surgery for potentially curable occlusive colorectal neoplasms

INTRODUCTION

The outcomes of patients treated with colonic stents as a bridge to surgery (BTS) have recently been questioned in terms of safety and long-term oncologic outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects on surgical and oncologic outcomes of colonic stents as a BTS for potentially resectable obstructive colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients operated on for potentially resectable obstructive colorectal cancer with or without distant disease between September 2002 and October 2015, comparing the patients treated with a colonic stent as a BTS (Stent group) with those directly operated on (Surgery group).

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent urgent surgery, while stent placement as a BTS was attempted in 57 patients. The Stent group had more patients treated with a laparoscopic approach (64.9 vs. 5%, P<.001), higher primary anastomosis rate (91.2 vs. 55%, P=.001), less need for stomata (10.5 vs. 50%, P=.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (7 vs. 12 days, P=.014). Thirty-day morbidity was reduced in the Stent group, although not significantly (29.8 vs. 50%, P=.104). However, 30-day mortality was significantly lower (1.8 vs. 20%, P=.015). Regarding the long-term oncologic outcomes, no significant differences were found when comparing overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival or progression-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonic stenting as a BTS for potentially resectable obstructive colorectal cancer seems to offer better surgical and equal long-term oncologic outcomes when compared to those of patients directly operated on.

Effectiveness and safety of metallic stent for ileocecal obstructive colon cancer: a report of 4 cases

Background and study aims  Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) have been widely used for left-sided colorectal obstruction. Few studies on SEMS placement for right-sided colonic obstructions have been reported because stenting in the right colon is technically difficult, particularly in the ileocecal region. We present 4 cases of successful bridge-to-surgery stenting for ileocecal cancer. Using an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography catheter with a movable tip and a decompression tube was effective for stenting. No adverse events occurred during or after SEMS placement in any of these cases. Short-term stenting for ileocecal cancer seems to be effective and safe.

Safety and efficacy of self-expandable metal stents for obstructive proximal and distal large bowel cancer

Self-expandable metal stents are often used to treat obstructive large bowel cancers. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of colonic stent insertion carried out in a district general hospital. Methods A retrospective review was carried out between 1 January 2007 and 28 February 2014 to identify patients who underwent stent insertion for malignant colorectal obstruction. Results Seventy-five patients (median age 75.2 years, 70.6% male) with primary colorectal cancer underwent stent insertion - 53 underwent semi-elective self-expanded metal stent insertion (for subacute bowel obstruction) and 22 had emergency stent inserted (for acute bowel obstruction). The majority (88%) had self-expanded metal stents inserted for palliation. Technical and clinical success rates were 98.7% and 91.2%, respectively. One patient had stent-related perforation; there was no procedure-related mortality. Conclusion This study shows that self-expanded metal stent insertion in malignant colorectal obstruction is safe and effective and can be successfully delivered in a district general hospital with high technical and clinical success rates.

Observational study of colonoscopy techniques used for acute colorectal obstruction: A single-center experience

The prevalence of acute colorectal obstruction at the hospital setting is high. There is need for improvement in the quality of colonoscopy for relieving obstruction. A retrospective, uncontrolled, open-label study was conducted, with the aim of documenting the causes of acute colorectal obstruction and the quality of colonoscopy practice in managing obstruction at a university hospital in China. A total of 61 adult patients with acute colorectal obstruction treated with urgent colonoscopy between February, 2011 and January, 2016 were identified at the Endoscopic Unit of Tongji Hospital (Wuhan, China). The technique success rate was the primary outcome. The etiology was mainly related to malignant diseases, including colorectal cancer in 53 patients (86.9%) and advanced peritoneal serous carcinoma leading to extrinsic colonic compression in 1 patient (1.6%). Benign causes of obstruction included foreign bodies in 3 patients (4.9%) and fecal impaction in 2 patients (3.3%); furthermore, anastomotic strictures were found in 2 patients (3.3%). The technique success rate was 98.4% (60/61). All colorectal cancer patients who underwent urgent colonoscopy were admitted to the Department of Surgery for placement of a self-expanding metallic stent; 1 patient who had an extracolonic malignancy underwent placement of a transanal colonoscopic decompression tube as palliative therapy and 2 patients with anastomotic strictures underwent endoscopic balloon dilation. Furthermore, colonoscopy was used for extracting the foreign body, as well as removing fecal stones in all the patients. In conclusion, urgent colonoscopy as a minimal invasive approach is associated with certain advantages for diagnosing and managing acute colorectal obstruction. Furthermore, experienced operators achieved a better outcome when managing colorectal obstruction.

Long-term outcomes of palliative colonic stenting versus emergency surgery for acute proximal malignant colonic obstruction: a multicenter trial

Background and study aims Long-term data are limited regarding clinical outcomes of self-expanding metal stents as an alternative for surgery in the treatment of acute proximal MBO. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of stenting to surgery for palliation in patients with incurable obstructive CRC for lesions proximal to the splenic flexure. Patients and methods Retrospective multicenter cohort study of obstructing proximal CRC patients with who underwent insertion of a SEMS (n = 69) or surgery (n = 36) from 1999 to 2014. The primary endpoint was relief of obstruction. Secondary endpoints included technical success, duration of hospital stay, early and late adverse events (AEs) and survival. Results Technical success was achieved in 62/69 (89.8 %) patients in the SEMS group and in 36 /36 (100 %) patients who underwent surgery (P = 0.09). In the SEMS group, 10 patients underwent stenting as a bridge to surgery and 59 underwent stent placement for palliation. Clinical relief was achieved in 78 % of patients with stenting and in 100 % of patients who underwent surgery (P < 0.001). Patients with SEMS had significantly less acute AEs compared to the surgery group (7.2 % vs. 30.5 %, P = 0.003). Hospital mortality for the SEMS group was 0 % compared to 5.6 % in the surgery group (P = 0.11). Patients in the SEMS group had a significantly shorter median hospital stay (4 days) as compared to the surgery group (8 days) (P < 0.01). Maintenance of decompression without the recurrence of bowel obstruction until death or last follow-up was lower in the SEMS group (73.9 %) than the surgery group (97.3 %; P = 0.003). SEMS placement was associated with higher long-term complication rates compared to surgery (21 % and 11 % P = 0.27). Late SEMS AEs included occlusion (10 %), migration (5 %), and colonic ulcer (6 %). At 120 weeks, survival in the SEMS group was 5.6 % vs. 0 % in the surgery group (P = 0.8). Conclusions Technical and clinical success associated with proximal colonic obstruction are higher with surgery when compared to SEMS, but surgery is associated with longer hospital stays and more early AEs. SEMS should be considered the initial mode of therapy in patients with acute proximal MBO and surgery should be reserved for SEMS failure, as surgery involves a high morbidity and mortality.

Radiologic Placement of Uncovered Stents for the Treatment of Malignant Colonic Obstruction Proximal to the Descending Colon

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety, feasibility, and patency rates of radiologic placement of uncovered stents for the treatment of malignant colonic obstruction proximal to the descending colon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-center study. From May 2003 to March 2015, 53 image-guided placements of uncovered stents (44 initial placements, 9 secondary placements) were attempted in 44 patients (male:female = 23:21; mean age, 71.8 years). The technical and clinical success, complication rates, and patency rates of the stents were also evaluated. Technical success was defined as the successful deployment of the stent under fluoroscopic guidance alone and clinical success was defined as the relief of obstructive symptoms or signs within 48 h of stent deployment.

RESULTS

In total, 12 (27.3 %) patients underwent preoperative decompression, while 32 (72.7 %) underwent decompression with palliative intent. The technical success rate was 93.2 % (41/44) for initial placement and 88.9 % (8/9) for secondary placement. Secondary stent placement in the palliative group was required in nine patients after successful initial stent placement due to stent obstruction from tumor ingrowth (n = 7) and stent migration (n = 2). The symptoms of obstruction were relieved in all successful cases (100 %). In the palliative group, the patency rates were 94.4 % at 1 month, 84.0 % at 3 months, 64.8 % at 6 months, and 48.6 % at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The radiologic placement of uncovered stents for the treatment of malignant obstruction proximal to the descending colon is feasible and safe, and provides acceptable clinical results.

Clinical benefits and oncologic equivalence of self-expandable metallic stent insertion for right-sided malignant colonic obstruction

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of stenting for right-sided malignant colonic obstruction is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and clinical benefits of self-expandable metallic stent insertion for right-sided malignant colonic obstruction.

METHODS

Clinical data from patients who underwent right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer from January 2006 to July 2014 at three Korea University hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 39 patients who developed malignant obstruction in the right-sided colon were identified, and their data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Stent insertion was attempted in 16 patients, and initial technical success was achieved in 14 patients (87.5 %). No stent-related immediate complications were reported. Complete relief from obstruction was achieved in all 14 patients. Twenty-five patients, including two patients who failed stenting, underwent emergency surgery. In the stent group, 93 % (13/14) of patients underwent elective laparoscopic surgery, and only one surgery was converted to an open procedure. All patients in the emergency group underwent emergency surgery within 24 h of admission. In the emergency group, only 12 % (3/25) of patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, with one surgery converted to an open procedure. All patients in both groups underwent either laparoscopy-assisted or open right/extended right hemicolectomy with primary anastomoses as the first operation. The operative times, retrieved lymph nodes, and pathologic stage did not differ between the two groups. Postoperative hospital stay (9.4 ± 3.4 days in the stent group vs. 12.4 ± 5.9 in the emergency group, p = 0.089) and time to resume oral food intake (3.2 ± 2.1 days in the stent group vs. 5.7 ± 3.4 in the emergency group, p = 0.019) were shorter in the stent group. And there were no significant differences in disease-free survival and overall survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Stent insertion appears to be safe and feasible in patients with right-sided colonic malignant obstruction. It facilitates minimally invasive surgery and may result in better short-term surgical outcomes.

Evidence-based Clinical Management of Acute Malignant Colorectal Obstruction

Acute malignant colorectal obstruction (AMCO) is an emergency associated with colorectal cancer (CRC). Emergency surgery is standard therapy for AMCO, and 1-stage surgery without colostomy is preferable, but it is occasionally difficult in the emergency setting. A self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) enables noninvasive colonic decompression and subsequent 1-stage surgery, which has been widely applied for CRC with AMCO. However, recent accumulation of high-quality evidence has highlighted some problems and the limited efficacy of SEMS for AMCO. In palliative settings, SEMS placement reduces hospital stay and short-term complication rates, whereas it increases the frequency of long-term complications, such as delayed perforation. SEMS placement does not seem compatible with recent standard chemotherapy including bevacizumab. As a bridge to surgery, while SEMS placement provides a lower clinical success rate than emergency surgery, it can facilitate primary anastomosis without stoma. However, evidence regarding long-term survival outcomes with SEMS in both palliative and bridge to surgery settings is lacking. The efficacy of transanal colorectal tube placement, another endoscopic treatment, has been reported, but its clinical evidence level is low due to the limited number of studies. This review article comprehensively summarizes the current knowledge about surgical and endoscopic management of CRC with AMCO.

Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes Between Emergency Surgery and Bridge to Surgery for Malignant Obstruction in Right-Sided Colon Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Malignant obstruction in right-sided colon (MORC) has traditionally been treated by emergency resection with primary anastomosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate short-term postoperative and long-term oncologic outcomes according to the surgical approach adopted for MORC.

METHODS

A total of 1785 patients who underwent curative surgery for stage II or III colon cancer in seven hospitals were reviewed retrospectively. Seventy-four of 1785 patients had MORC. We compared the postoperative outcome and long-term oncologic outcome between the emergency surgery (ES) group (49 patients) and the bridge to surgery (BS) group (25 patients) for 74 patients with MORC.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the length of the distal and proximal resection margin (p = 0.820 and p = 0.620) or the number of metastatic lymph nodes (p = 0.221). There were no differences in flatus passage (p = 0.242), start of diet (p = 0.336), hospital stay (p = 0.444), or postoperative morbidity (p = 0.762). The 5-year overall survival rates were 73.2 % in the ES group and 90.7 % in the BS group (p = 0.172). Moreover, the 5-year disease-free survival rates were 71.9 % in the ES group and 76.2 % in the BS group (p = 0.929).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the above results, the postoperative course of the ES group was similar to that of the BS group. In addition, the long-term oncologic outcome of the BS group was similar or slightly better than that of the ES group. BS after colonic stent may be an alternative option for MORC.

Stents for colorectal obstruction: Past, present, and future

Since the development of uncovered self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) in the 1990s, endoscopic stents have evolved dramatically. Application of new materials and new designs has expanded the indications for enteral SEMS. At present, enteral stents are considered the first-line modality for palliative care, and numerous types of enteral stents are under development for extended clinical usage, beyond a merely palliative purpose. Herein, we will discuss the current status and the future development of lower enteral stents.

Defining characteristics of patients with colorectal cancer requiring emergency surgery

INTRODUCTION

Emergency surgery for colorectal cancer has been associated with high mortality. The aim of this study is to determine factors predictive of undergoing emergency surgery, of 30-day mortality, and explore the role of screening in patients undergoing emergency surgery.

METHODS

All patients at our unit, undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2014 were included. Data on patient demographics, tumour staging, admission type, comorbidity score, mortality data, and screening data were analysed. Multivariable analyses were carried out to determine predictors of undergoing emergency surgery as well as mortality postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 1911 consecutive patients underwent elective and emergency surgery for colorectal cancer. Of the 263 patients who underwent emergency surgery for CRC, 37.3 % (n = 98) had right-sided colonic cancers. Multivariable analyses determined right-sided cancers (OR 2.92, 95 % CI 2.03-4.20, p < 0.001) and stage IV tumours to be independently associated with undergoing emergency surgery (OR 6.64, 95 % CI 2.86-15.42, p < 0.001). Undergoing emergency surgery was an independent predictor of 30-day mortality (OR 9.62, 95 % CI 5.96-15.54, p < 0.001). Of the 50 patients that died within 30 days in the emergency surgery group, 32 % were in patients with right-sided colon cancers. Cancer detection through guaiac faecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) amongst this group is low with six out of nine patients having a false negative gFOBT test.

CONCLUSION

Emergency CRC surgery is associated with high mortality. Alternative screening strategies that improve detection of proximal colon cancers may reduce the number of patients undergoing emergency surgery for right-sided cancers.

Emergency resection versus bridge to surgery with stenting in patients with acute right-sided colonic obstruction: a systematic review focusing on mortality and morbidity rates

PURPOSE

No consensus exists on the optimal treatment of acute malignant right-sided colonic obstruction (RSCO). This systematic review aims to compare procedure-related mortality and morbidity rates between primary resection and stent placement as a bridge to surgery followed by elective resection for patients with acute RSCO.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were searched for all relevant literature. Primary endpoints were procedure-related mortality and morbidity. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the MINORS criteria.

RESULTS

Fourteen cohort studies were eligible for analysis. A total of 2873 patients were included in the acute resection group and 155 patients in the stent group. Mean mortality rate for patients who underwent acute resection with primary anastomosis was 10.8% (8.1-18.5%). Overall mortality for patients initially treated with a colonic stent followed with elective resection was 0%. Major morbidity was 23.9% (9.3-35.6%) and 0.8% (0-4.8%), respectively. Both mortality and major morbidity were significantly different. In addition, stent placement shows lower rates of anastomotic leakages (0 vs 9.1%) and fewer permanent ileostomies (0 vs 1.0%).

CONCLUSION

Primary resection for patients with acute RSCO seems to be associated with higher mortality and major morbidity rates than stent placement and elective resection. In addition, stent placement resulted in fewer anastomotic leakages and permanent ileostomies. However, as no high-level studies are available on the optimal treatment of RSCO and proximal stenting is considered technically challenging, future comparative studies are warranted for the development of an evidence-based clinical decision guideline.

Novel stenting method for malignant right colonic stenosis using ultra-thin endoscopy: Report of four cases

Placement of a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) is recognized as a safe and effective procedure for patients with malignant severe colonic stenosis. However, reports of this stent for right-sided colonic stenosis are limited, possibly as a result of technical difficulties. We report a new method for delivering SEMS to the site of right-sided colonic stenosis in four patients with malignant right-sided colonic stenosis. Technical success was obtained with sequential use of a double-balloon endoscope and ultrathin endoscope, while we also injected non-ionic contrast agent into the submucosal layer as a marker for stenting under fluoroscopy. There were no adverse events noted during the procedure and clinical improvement was seen in all four cases. In conclusion, SEMS placement for right-sided malignant colonic stenosis with our newly developed method appears to be safe and effective, and can be used for decompression of the right colon.

Efficacy of self-expanding metallic stent for right-sided colonic obstruction due to carcinoma before 1-stage laparoscopic surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of this small study was to assess the clinical outcomes of self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement followed by 1-stage laparoscopic resection for treatment of acute right-sided colonic obstruction due to carcinoma.

METHOD

From January 2012 to December 2012, we performed 1-stage laparoscopic colectomy after placement of SEMS for right-sided obstructive colon carcinoma in 4 patients.

RESULTS

SEMS placement was technically successful in all cases and symptoms were immediately relieved. The presence of the endoluminal stent did not prevent a laparoscopic approach; moreover, decompression of the bowel obstruction provided a wide field of view and working space for the laparoscopic procedure. There were no cases of conversion to laparotomy and no intraoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

One-stage laparoscopic surgery, as a minimally invasive therapy, can be safely performed by SEMS placement in patients with acute right-sided colonic obstruction due to carcinoma. A large sample study is required to confirm the efficacy of this procedure.

Gastrointestinal stenting: Current status and imaging features

The use of stents in the gastrointestinal tract has been subjected to major changes. Initially, the use of stents was restricted to malignant strictures in patients with metastatic disease. But thanks to reduction of the morbidity and mortality rates, they are now used with curative intention and in patients with benign diseases after careful selection. However, for patients presenting with colon obstruction due to an advanced colon carcinoma, the mortality and morbidity are still high. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of indications, techniques and further developments of the stents in the gastrointestinal tract and to highlight the predominant role of multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) in the detection of potential complications.

What is the necessity of endoscopist for successful endoscopic stenting in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Recently, self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) have been widely used as an initial therapy for relieving malignant colorectal obstructions. However, several factors, including the endoscopist's experience, affect the clinical outcome of SEMSs. The aim of this study was to define the adequate level of experience necessary to perform endoscopic stenting effectively and safely and to identify technical factors for successful stenting.

METHODS

Between March 2009 and June 2012, 160 patients underwent SEMS placement for malignant colorectal obstruction with the intent of palliation or as a bridge to surgery by a single endoscopist who experienced colonoscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

RESULTS

The overall technical and clinical success rates were 86.9 and 86.4%, respectively, and 18 complications (11.3%) were observed. There were no differences in any of the clinical outcomes between the consecutive blocks; however, the procedure time decreased significantly after the first 30 procedures (17.4, 16.9, 13.5, and 12.8 min; P = 0.044). American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, history of a previous operation, proximal colon obstruction, obstruction caused by an extracolonic malignancy, and palliative SEMS placement were associated with technical failure.

CONCLUSIONS

An endoscopist who experiences a colonoscopy and fluoroscopy performs SEMS placement successfully regardless of the level of experience. After the first 30 procedures, a SEMS insertion could be safely and effectively performed with short procedure time in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction.

The Effectiveness of Self-Expandable Metallic Stent Insertion in Treating Right-Sided Colonic Obstruction: A Comparison between SEMS and Decompression Tube Placement and an Investigation of the Safety and Difficulties of SEMS Insertion in Right Colons

Objectives. Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) is widely used to treat malignant colonic obstruction. However, most reports about SEMS insertion have concentrated on the left colon. This study aimed to (1) investigate the effectiveness of SEMS insertion compared with conventional decompression tube for right-sided colonic obstruction and (2) compare the safety and technical success of SEMS insertion between left- and right-sided colonic obstructions. Methods. The data from thirty-seven patients who underwent SEMS or conventional decompression tube placement for malignant colonic obstruction in our hospital were analyzed retrospectively. Technical and clinical success, complications, and technical difficulties were analyzed. We compared the results between SEMS insertion and decompression tube placement in right colons and the outcomes of SEMS insertion between right- and left-sided colonic obstructions. Results. For right colons, the clinical success rate of SEMS insertion (100%) was significantly higher than that of decompression tube placement (55.9%). Concerning SEMS insertion, the technical difficulty and safety of SEMS insertion were similar between right- and left-sided colonic obstructions. Conclusion. SEMS insertion for right-sided colon is significantly more effective than conventional decompression tube placement, and this procedure was safer and less technically challenging than expected. SEMS insertion should be considered for treating right-sided malignant colonic obstruction.

Enteral stents for the management of malignant colorectal obstruction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the 3^rd most common cancer in the United States with more than 10000 new cases diagnosed annually. Approximately 20% of patients with CRC will have distant metastasis at time of diagnosis, making them poor candidates for primary surgical resection. Similarly, 8%-25% of patients with CRC will present with bowel obstruction and will require palliative therapy. Emergent surgical decompression has a high mortality and morbidity, and often leads to a colostomy which impairs the patient’s quality of life. In the last decade, there has been an increasing use of colonic stents for palliative therapy to relieve malignant colonic obstruction. Colonic stents have been shown to be effective and safe to treat obstruction from CRC, and are now the therapy of choice in this scenario. In the setting of an acute bowel obstruction in patients with potentially resectable colon cancer, stents may be used to delay surgery and thus allow for decompression, adequate bowel preparation, and optimization of the patient’s condition for curative surgical intervention. An overall complication rate (major and minor) of up to 25% has been associated with the procedure. Long term failure of stents may result from stent migration and tumor ingrowth. In the majority of cases, repeat stenting or surgical intervention can successfully overcome these adverse effects.

Bridge-to-surgery stent placement versus emergency surgery for acute malignant colonic obstruction

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) placement as a bridge to surgery is an option for acute malignant colonic obstruction. There is ongoing debate regarding the superiority and oncological safety of SEMS placement compared with emergency surgery. This retrospective study aimed to compare outcomes of these treatment approaches.

METHODS

Patients were identified from cohorts treated between 2005 and 2012 in two teaching hospitals, of which one used emergency surgery only in patients with large bowel obstruction, whereas the other attempted SEMS placement. Only patients treated with curative intent were included.

RESULTS

The study included 59 patients in whom SEMS placement was attempted and 51 who underwent surgery alone. The successful primary anastomosis rate was higher in the SEMS group than in the surgery-alone group among patients with left-sided obstruction (30 of 43 versus 10 of 34 respectively; P = 0.001), whereas stoma formation was less common (11 of 43 versus 23 of 34; P < 0.001). Such differences were not apparent in patients with right-sided obstruction. Secondary stoma rates were comparable between treatment approaches (left-sided: 11 of 43 versus 13 of 34, P = 0.322; right-sided: 1 of 16 versus 1 of 17, P = 1.000). There were no significant differences in morbidity, mortality, recurrence or survival.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic SEMS placement increased the primary anastomosis rate in patients with left-sided large bowel obstruction.

Self-expandable metal stents for malignant colonic obstruction: data from a retrospective regional SIED-AIGO study

BACKGROUND

Self-expandable metal stents are a non-surgical option for the treatment of symptomatic malignant colorectal obstruction as palliative treatment or as a bridge to surgery.

AIMS

To report data from a regional study on self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement for malignant colorectal obstruction.

METHODS

Two hundred and four patients (male 54.9%, mean age of 69.5 ± 14.2) were retrospectively evaluated and data on technical and clinical success, and complications, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Technical and clinical success rates were 99% and 94.6% respectively, with 36.7% treated on an emergency basis and 63.3% electively. Palliative treatment was administered to 70.1%, and as a bridge to surgery for 29.9%. Complications were 17 neoplastic ingrowths, 10 stent migrations, and 4 perforations. Palliative treatment was associated with a higher risk of stent ingrowth (p=0.003), and chemotherapy with a lower risk of stent ingrowth (p=0.009).

CONCLUSION

This regional study, although it has certain limitations, confirms the positive role of self-expandable metal stents in the treatment of symptomatic malignant colorectal obstruction, and that chemotherapy decreases the risk of ingrowth.

The new nitinol conformable self-expandable metal stents for malignant colonic obstruction: a pilot experience as bridge to surgery treatment

Introduction. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are a nonsurgical option for treatment of malignant colorectal obstruction also as a bridge to surgery approach. The new nitinol conformable stent has improved clinical outcomes in these kinds of patients. We report a pilot experience with nitinol conformable SEMS placement as bridge to surgery treatment in patients with colorectal obstruction. Materials and Methods. Between April and August 2012, we collected data on colonic nitinol conformable SEMS placement in a cohort of consecutive symptomatic patients, with malignant colorectal obstruction, who were treated as a bridge to surgery. Technical success, clinical success, and adverse events were recorded. Results. Ten patients (7 male (70%)), with a mean age of 69.2 ± 10.1, were evaluated. The mean length of the stenosis was 3.6 ± 0.6 cm. Five patients (50%) were treated on an emergency basis. The median time from stent placement to surgery was 16 days (interquartile range 7–21). Technical and clinical success was achieved in all patients with a significant early improvement of symptoms. No adverse events due to the SEMS placement were observed. Conclusion. This pilot study confirmed the important role of nitinol conformable SEMS as a bridge to surgery option in the treatment of symptomatic malignant colorectal obstruction.

Surgical management of obstructed and perforated colorectal cancer: still debating and unresolved issues

SUMMARY Emergency surgery for obstruction and perforation from colorectal cancer (CRC) predicts poorer outcomes compared with elective surgery. For obstructed cancers, the evidence suggests significantly poorer outcomes with multistaged procedures compared with single-stage procedures in this group. Stenting remains an attractive option as a ‘bridge-to-surgery’, with multiple single-center studies demonstrating excellent short-term outcomes. However, contradictory evidence from three randomized trials casts doubts on stenting as the preferred modality for initial management of all curative obstructed CRCs. Results from a UK multicenter randomized controlled trial are still awaited. Palliative stenting shows predominantly positive results and is a valuable option for nonresectable or incurable CRCs. All authors agree on emergency surgery as the primary modality of treatment for perforated malignancies. Short-term outcomes are markedly poorer than the elective surgery group and correlate with the degree of peritoneal contamination. Long-term outcomes are comparable to elective surgery when perioperative deaths are excluded.

Acute GI obstruction

Acute gastrointestinal obstruction occurs when the normal flow of intestinal contents is interrupted. The blockage can occur at any level throughout the gastrointestinal tract. The clinical symptoms depend on the level and extent of obstruction. Various benign and malignant processes can produce acute gastrointestinal obstruction, which often represents a medical emergency because of the potential for bowel ischemia leading to perforation and peritonitis. Early recognition and appropriate treatment are thus essential. The typical clinical symptoms associated with obstruction include nausea, vomiting, dysphagia, abdominal pain and failure to pass bowel movements. Abdominal distention, tympany due to an air-filled stomach and high-pitched bowel sounds suggest the diagnosis. The diagnostic process involves imaging including radiography, ultrasonography, contrast fluoroscopy and computer tomography in less certain cases. In patients with uncomplicated obstruction, management is conservative, including fluid resuscitation, electrolyte replacement, intestinal decompression and bowel rest. In many cases, endoscopy may aid in both the diagnostic process and in therapy. Endoscopy can be used for bowel decompression, dilation of strictures or placement of self-expandable metal stents to restore the luminal flow either as a final treatment or to allow for a delay until elective surgical therapy. When gastrointestinal obstruction results in ischemia, perforation or peritonitis, emergency surgery is required.

Evidence-based recommendations on colorectal stenting: a report from the stent study group of the korean society of gastrointestinal endoscopy

Recently, placement of self-expandable metallic stents has been used for the treatment of colorectal obstruction. As domestic awareness of colorectal cancer has increased, the number of colorectal stenting procedures performed has also increased. We aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for colorectal stenting to aid gastroenterologists in making informed decisions regarding the management of patients who present with colorectal obstruction. The working group consisted of eight gastroenterologists who actively practice and conduct research in the field of colorectal stenting and are the members of the Stent Study Group of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, KoreaMed, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant articles published between January 2001 and June 2012. Based on the modified Delphi process, 10 recommendation statements regarding indications, usefulness, methodology and complications of colorectal stenting, and alternative treatments for malignant colorectal obstruction were determined. The contents will be widely distributed, and periodically revised to reflect the latest knowledge. These evidence-based recommendations for colorectal stenting will provide gastroenterologists and patients with appropriate and balanced information, and will improve the quality of care.

Comparison of NCCN, NICE and Chinese Ministry of Health guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common gastrointestinal malignancies in China. With the increasing in the incidence of CRC in recent years, standardization of the diagnosis and treatment of CRC has attracted more and more attention from clinicians. Over the past years, although clinicians in China mainly refer to the NCCN guideline, the NICE guideline also attracts wide attention. In addition, the Chinese Ministry of Health guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of CRC was issued on October, 2010. In this paper, we will compare and interpret the above three guidelines.

Duodenal and colonic stent placement with 0.025″ and 0.035″ guidewires is equally safe and effective

BACKGROUND

The overwhelming majority of reported duodenal and colonic SEMS placements in the literature have used the 0.035″ guidewire almost to the exclusion of guidewires of other diameters.

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to compare technical and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing duodenal or colonic SEMS placement with 0.025″ or 0.035″ guidewires.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study to compare technical and clinical outcomes and complications of patients receiving duodenal or colonic SEMS placement with a 0.035″ guidewire to those undergoing placement with a 0.025″ guidewire.

RESULTS

A total of 34 duodenal and 30 colonic stent placement procedures were performed in 59 patients. Technical success was achieved in all duodenal stent placement procedures. The difference in mean GOOSS score increase after stent placement was not statistically significant between the 0.035″ and 0.025″ guidewire groups (P = 0.49). Complications were not statistically significantly different between the two groups undergoing gastroduodenal stenting. Technical and clinical success was achieved in all colonic stent placement procedures. There were no statistically significant differences in complication rates between the two groups undergoing colonic stenting. Procedure times were not significantly different using either wire type.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that both 0.035″ and 0.025″ guidewires were equally effective with regards to technical success, clinical success, and with regards to the development of complications.

Clinical outcomes and risk factors for technical and clinical failures of self-expandable metal stent insertion for malignant colorectal obstruction

BACKGROUND

Although self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) insertion is widely used for relief of malignant colorectal obstructions, the immediate technical and clinical failure rates of SEMSs and the associated risk factors remain largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To identify rates and factors predictive of technical and clinical failure of SEMSs when their use is attempted for the decompression of malignant colorectal obstruction.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

SETTING

A tertiary-care academic medical center in South Korea.

PATIENTS

This study involved a total of 412 patients with malignant colorectal obstruction in whom SEMS insertion was attempted.

INTERVENTION

Placement of colonic SEMSs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Technical success and immediate and long-term clinical success rates.

RESULTS

Technical and clinical failures were found in 36 of 276 patients (13.0%) and 39 of 240 patients (16.3%) in the palliative group, respectively, and in 3 of 136 patients (2.2%) and 7 of 133 patients (5.3%) in the preoperative group, respectively. Factors associated with technical failure were extracolonic origin of tumor, the presence of carcinomatosis, and a proximal obstruction site. Factors associated with long-term clinical failure in the palliative group were combined dilation procedure, no additional chemotherapy, and extracolonic origin of the tumor. In the preoperative group, only older patients had both higher technical failure and clinical failure rates.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-institution, retrospective analysis.

CONCLUSION

Although colorectal SEMS placement is generally safe and effective, it is associated with clinically important technical and clinical failure rates. The identification of risk factors for the failure of colorectal SEMSs found in this study might help physicians decide between surgical decompression and endoscopic stenting in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction.

Colorectal stents: do we have enough evidence?

BACKGROUND

The use of colonic stents has significantly evolved over the last few years. Emergency surgery for colonic obstructions is usually associated with significant mortality, morbidity and often stoma formation. Colonic stents provide an alternative way to relieve colonic obstruction, and hence avoiding the risks associated with emergency surgery. This literature review aims to summarize the important current evidence regarding colorectal stenting and show whether further evaluation of the procedure is required.

RESULTS

The available large number of non-randomized studies suggests that Self-Expandable-Metal-Stents (SEMS) placement for acute colonic obstruction could be considered as safe and effective alternative to surgery in experienced hands either as a bridge to surgery or as a palliative measure. This evidence has led to SEMS being widely adopted. However, randomized evidence has begun to show the defects that are inherent in the low level evidence that has so far supported SEMS use and it may be that reports of randomized controlled trials may clarify the patient population where SEMS placement is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

While we are still waiting for the outcome of the multicentre randomized controlled trials in the UK and Europe, clinicians must be aware of the current evidence limitations and apply SEMS use pragmatically.