Acute resection versus bridge to surgery with diverting colostomy for patients with acute malignant left sided colonic obstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

COMPASS: deCOMPressing stomA and two-Stage elective resection vs. emergency reSection in patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer stands as a prevalent cause of cancer-related mortality, necessitating effective treatment strategies. Acute colonic obstruction occurs in approximately 20% of patients and represents a surgical emergency with substantial morbidity and mortality. The optimal approach for managing left-sided colon cancer with acute colonic obstruction remains debatable, with no consensus on whether emergency resection or bridge-to-surgery, involving initial decompressing stoma and subsequent elective resection after recovery, should be employed. Current studies show a decrease in morbidity and short-term mortality for the bridge-to-surgery approach, yet it remains unclear if the long-term oncological outcome is equivalent to emergency resection.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, multicenter trial aims to investigate the management of obstructive left-sided colon cancer in a comprehensive manner. The study will be conducted across 26 university hospitals and 40 academic hospitals in Germany. A total of 468 patients will be enrolled, providing a cohort of 420 evaluable patients, with an equal distribution of 210 patients in each treatment arm. Patients with left-sided colon cancer, defined as cancer between the left splenic flexure and > 12 cm ab ano and obstruction confirmed by X-ray or CT scan, are eligible. Randomization will be performed in a 1:1 ratio, assigning patients either to the oncological emergency resection group or the bridge-to-surgery group, wherein patients will undergo diverting stoma and subsequent elective oncological resection after recovery. The primary endpoint of this trial will be 120-day mortality, allowing for consideration of the time interval between diverting stoma and resection.

DISCUSSION

The findings derived from this trial possess the potential to reshape the current clinical approach of emergency resection for obstructive left-sided colon cancer by favoring the bridge-to-surgery practice, provided that a reduction in morbidity can be achieved without compromising the oncological long-term outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) under the identifier DRKS00031827. Registered on May 15, 2023.

PROTOCOL

28.04.2023, protocol version 2.0F.

Clinicopathological Analysis of Complicated Colorectal Cancer: A Five-Year Retrospective Study from a Single Surgery Unit

Patients with primary colorectal cancer can present with obstructions, tumor bleeding, or perforations, which represent acute complications. This paper aimed to analyze and compare the clinical and pathological profiles of two patient groups: one with colorectal cancer and a related complication and another without any specific complication. We performed a five-year retrospective study on colorectal cancer patients admitted to a surgery unit and comparatively explored the main clinical and pathological features of the tumors belonging to the two groups. A total of 250 patients with colorectal cancer were included in the analysis. Of these, 117 (46.8%) had presented a type of complication. The comparative analysis that examined several clinical and pathological parameters showed a statistically significant difference for unfavorable prognosis factors in the group with complications. This was evident for features such as vascular and perineural invasion, lymph node involvement, pathological primary tumor stage, and TNM stage. Colorectal cancers with a related complication belonged to a group of tumors with a more aggressive histopathologic profile and more advanced stages. Furthermore, the comparable incidence of cases in the two groups of patients warrants further efforts to be made in terms of early detection and prognosis prediction of colorectal cancer.

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.

Risk factors for a permanent stoma after resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer - A prediction model

INTRODUCTION

In patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC), a stoma is often constructed as part of primary treatment, but with a considerable risk of becoming a permanent stoma (PS). The aim of this retrospective multicentre cohort is to identify risk factors for a PS in LSOCC and to develop a pre- and postoperative prediction model for PS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data was retrospectively obtained from 75 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients who had curative resection of LSOCC between January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2016 were included with a minimum follow-up of 6 months after resection. The interventions analysed were emergency resection, decompressing stoma or stent as bridge-to-elective resection. Main outcome measure was presence of PS at the end of follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for PS at primary presentation (T₀) and after resection, in patients having a stoma in situ (T₁). These risk factors were used to construct a web-based prediction tool.

RESULTS

Of 2099 patients included in the study (T₀), 779 had a PS (37%). A total of 1275 patients had a stoma in situ directly after resection (T₁), of whom 674 had a PS (53%). Median follow-up was 34 months. Multivariable analysis showed that older patients, female sex, high ASA-score and open approach were independent predictors for PS in both the T₀ and T₁ population. Other predictors at T₀ were sigmoid location, low Hb, high CRP, cM1 stage, and emergency resection. At T₁, subtotal colectomy, no primary anastomosis, not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and high pTNM stage were additional predictors. Two predictive models were built, with an AUC of 0.74 for T₀ and an AUC of 0.81 for T₁.

CONCLUSIONS

PS is seen in 37% of the patients who have resection of LSOCC. In patients with a stoma in situ directly after resection, 53% PS are seen due to non-reversal. Not only baseline characteristics, but also treatment strategies determine the risk of a PS in patients with LSOCC. The developed predictive models will give physicians insight in the role of the individual variables on the risk of a PS and help in informing the patient about the probability of a PS.

Two undesirable complications of a blowhole colostomy in left-sided colonic obstruction

Two patients with an acute left-sided colonic obstruction had a successful decompression after construction of a blowhole transverse colostomy as a bridge to surgery. However, they presented with two rather unknown stoma-related complications during this bridging period. Patient A had a stomal prolapse with additional skin problems.Patient B complained of abdominal discomfort during follow-up. The blowhole colostomy appeared to be stenotic. Stoma dilation and irrigation was initiated to prevent complete closure.Definite resection of the left-sided obstruction and reversal of both blowhole colostomies was successful, and the patients recovered without further complications.We hypothesise that incision size may be related to prolapse and stenosis rates and that eversion of the mucosa of the blowhole may reduce the risk of stomal stenosis.

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.

Comparison of two-stage and three-stage surgery for obstructing left-sided colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Whether the timing of stoma reversal after emergency diversion for obstructive left-sided colon cancer affects patient outcomes is unknown. Our study compared the short- and long-term outcomes of two- and three-stage operations for obstructive left-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

Patients with obstructive left-sided colon cancer who underwent staged resection at a referral hospital between January 2002 and December 2015 were retrospectively identified. Patient demographics and outcomes were analysed and compared between the two groups. Statistical significance was set as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 191 patients were reviewed. The overall complication rate was higher for two-stage surgery than for three-stage surgery (57.1% versus 36.0%, p < 0.01). Surgical site infection and/or wound dehiscence were the most common complications. Other complications, including anastomotic leakage, ileus, and bowel obstruction, were not significantly different between the two groups. The five-year overall survival and disease-free survival in stage II and III patients were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with obstructive left-sided colon cancer who underwent staged resection, two-stage surgery was associated with a higher complication rate, especially for surgical site infection and/or wound dehiscence, which could be managed by local treatment. The timing of stoma reversal was not associated with survival differences in patients with stage II and III disease. However, issues such as the location of the tumour and diverting stoma, along with the need to resect other upper abdominal organs, should all be considered when deciding between two- and three-stage surgeries.

Clinical outcome of decompressing colostomy for acute left-sided colorectal obstruction: a consecutive series of 100 patients

PURPOSE

Aim of our study was to evaluate the outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who were treated with a decompressing colostomy (DC) for acute left-sided colorectal obstruction.

METHOD

A consecutive series of 100 patients with acute left-sided colorectal obstruction who underwent DC from January 2015 to August 2020 was retrospectively analyzed. Demographic characteristics, etiology of the obstruction, postoperative morbidity- and mortality rates, DC-related complication and stoma reversal rates were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 100 included patients, 64 had malignant- and 36 had benign obstruction. The mean age was 69 years, 42% was male, and the ASA score was 2. Morbidity and mortality rates after DC construction were 20 and 2%, respectively. In 39% of the patients, DC ended up as a permanent stoma and in 61% as bridge to surgery (BtS). DC related complication rate was 32%, with a re-intervention rate of 9%. Elective colorectal resection was performed in 59 cases (59%) with subsequent postoperative morbidity rate of 20%. Stoma reversal rate was 77% for the patients who underwent DC as BtS. Stoma reversal was performed in 66% of the patients with benign obstruction and in 36% for oncological obstruction.

CONCLUSION

DC as bridge to possible elective resection for acute left-sided colorectal obstruction is an effective strategy with low morbidity and mortality rates and a high stoma reversal rate, especially for benign obstruction. However, DC is less appropriate for patients in whom DC turns out to be a permanent stoma due to a relatively high stoma related complications.

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.

Comparison of Decompressing Stoma vs Stent as a Bridge to Surgery for Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer

Importance

Bridge to elective surgery using self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement is a debated alternative to emergency resection for patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer because of oncologic concerns. A decompressing stoma (DS) might be a valid alternative, but relevant studies are scarce.

Objective

To compare DS with SEMS as a bridge to surgery for nonlocally advanced left-sided obstructive colon cancer using propensity score matching.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This national, population-based cohort study was performed at 75 of 77 hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 4216 patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer treated from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2016, were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit and 3153 patients were studied. Additional procedural and intermediate-term outcome data were retrospectively collected from individual patient files, resulting in a median follow-up of 32 months (interquartile range, 15-57 months). Data were analyzed from April 7 to October 28, 2019.

Exposures

Decompressing stoma vs SEMS as a bridge to surgery.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary anastomosis rate, postresection presence of a stoma, complications, additional interventions, permanent stoma, locoregional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Propensity score matching was performed according to age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, prior abdominal surgery, tumor location, pN stage, cM stage, length of stenosis, and year of resection.

Results

A total of 3153 of the eligible 4216 patients were included in the study (mean [SD] age, 69.7 [11.8] years; 1741 [55.2%] male); after exclusions, 443 patients underwent bridge to surgery (240 undergoing DS and 203 undergoing SEMS). Propensity score matching led to 2 groups of 121 patients each. Patients undergoing DS had more primary anastomoses (104 of 121 [86.0%] vs 90 of 120 [75.0%], P = .02), more postresection stomas (81 of 121 [66.9%] vs 34 of 117 [29.1%], P < .001), fewer major complications (7 of 121 [5.8%] vs 18 of 118 [15.3%], P = .02), and more subsequent interventions, including stoma reversal (65 of 113 [57.5%] vs 33 of 117 [28.2%], P < .001). After DS and SEMS, the 3-year locoregional recurrence rates were 11.7% for DS and 18.8% for SEMS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.28; P = .20), the 3-year disease-free survival rates were 64.0% for DS and 56.9% for SEMS (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.33; P = .60), and the 3-year overall survival rates were 78.0% for DS and 71.8% for SEMS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.48-1.22; P = .26).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings suggest that DS as bridge to resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer is associated with advantages and disadvantages compared with SEMS, with similar intermediate-term oncologic outcomes. The existing equipoise indicates the need for a randomized clinical trial that compares the 2 bridging techniques.

Management Considerations for the Surgical Treatment of Colorectal Cancer During the Global Covid-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic requires to conscientiously weigh "timely surgical intervention" for colorectal cancer against efforts to conserve hospital resources and protect patients and health care providers.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Professional societies provided ad-hoc guidance at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic on deferral of surgical and perioperative interventions, but these lack specific parameters to determine the optimal timing of surgery.

METHODS

Using the GRADE system, published evidence was analyzed to generate weighted statements for stage, site, acuity of presentation, and hospital setting to specify when surgery should be pursued, the time and duration of oncologically acceptable delays, and when to utilize nonsurgical modalities to bridge the waiting period.

RESULTS

Colorectal cancer surgeries-prioritized as emergency, urgent with imminent emergency or oncologically urgent, or elective-were matched against the phases of the pandemic. Surgery in COVID-19-positive patients must be avoided. Emergent and imminent emergent cases should mostly proceed unless resources are exhausted. Standard practices allow for postponement of elective cases and deferral to nonsurgical modalities of stage II/III rectal and metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologically urgent cases may be delayed for 6(-12) weeks without jeopardizing oncological outcomes. Outside established principles, administration of nonsurgical modalities is not justified and increases the vulnerability of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed already limited health care resources and forced rationing, triage, and prioritization of care in general, specifically of surgical interventions. Established guidelines allow for modifications of optimal timing and type of surgery for colorectal cancer during an unrelated pandemic.

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.

Changes in Management of Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer: National Practice and Guideline Implementation

Background: Previous analysis of Dutch practice in treatment of left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC) until 2012 showed that emergency resection (ER) was preferred, with high mortality in patients aged ≥70 years. Consequently, Dutch and European guidelines in 2014 recommended a bridge to surgery (BTS) with either self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) or decompressing stoma (DS) in high-risk patients. The implementation and effects of these guidelines have not yet been evaluated. Therefore, our aim was to perform an in-depth update of national practice concerning curative treatment of LSOCC, including an evaluation of guideline implementation. Patients and Methods: This multicenter cohort study was conducted in 75 of 77 hospitals in the Netherlands. We included data on patients who underwent curative resection of LSOCC in 2009 through 2016 obtained from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit. Additional data were retrospectively collected. Results: A total of 2,587 patients were included (2,013 ER, 345 DS, and 229 SEMS). A trend was observed in reversal of ER (decrease from 86.2% to 69.6%) and SEMS (increase from 1.3% to 7.8%) after 2014, with an ongoing increase in DS (from 5.2% in 2009 to 22.7% in 2016). DS after 2014 was associated with more laparoscopic resections (66.0% vs 35.5%; P<.001) and more 2-stage procedures (41.5% vs 28.6%; P=.01) with fewer permanent stomas (14.7% vs 29.5%; P=.005). Overall, more laparoscopic resections (25.4% vs 13.2%; P<.001) and shorter total hospital stays (14 vs 15 days; P<.001) were observed after 2014. However, similar rates of primary anastomosis (48.7% vs 48.6%; P=.961), 90-day complications (40.4% vs 37.9%; P=.254), and 90-day mortality (6.5% vs 7.0%; P=.635) were observed. Conclusions: Guideline revision resulted in a notable change from ER to BTS for LSOCC. This was accompanied by an increased rate of laparoscopic resections, more 2-stage procedures with a decreased permanent stoma rate in patients receiving DS as BTS, and a shorter total hospital stay. However, overall 90-day complication and mortality rates remained relatively high.

Diverting Ostomy: For Whom, When, What, Where, and Why

Fecal diversion is an important tool in the surgical armamentarium. There is much controversy regarding which clinical scenarios warrant diversion. Throughout this article, we have analyzed the most recent literature and discussed the most common applications for the use of a diverting stoma. These include construction of diverting ileostomy or colostomy, ostomy for low colorectal/coloanal anastomosis, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticular disease, and obstructing colorectal cancer. We conclude the following: diverting loop ileostomy is preferred to loop colostomy, an ostomy should be used for a pelvic anastomosis < 5 to 6 cm including coloanal anastomosis and ileo-anal-pouch anastomosis, severe perianal Crohn's disease frequently requires diversion, a primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy in the setting of diverticular perforation is safe, and a diverting stoma can be used as a bridge to primary resection in the setting of an obstructing malignancy.

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.

Efficacy of loop colostomy construction for acute left-sided colonic obstructions: a cohort analysis

PURPOSE

Acute primary resection as treatment for left-sided colonic obstruction (LSCO) is notorious for its high morbidity and mortality rates. Both stenting and loop colostomy construction can serve as a bridge to surgery, hereby avoiding the high morbidity and mortality rates associated with emergency resections. This study aims to investigate the safety of a loop colostomy in patients presenting with acute LSCO.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of all patients that received a loop colostomy for LSCO between 2003 and 2015 was performed. Primary outcomes were mortality, major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grades III-IV) and minor morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grades I-II).

RESULTS

One hundred forty-six patients presenting with acute LSCO received a diverting colostomy. After colostomy construction, mortality occurred in four patients (2.7%) and major complications were reported in 20 patients (13.7%). In 61 patients, the diverting colostomy served as a palliative measure, because of metastatic disease or unfitness for major surgery. The remaining 85 patients all underwent delayed resection, resulting in an overall mortality, major morbidity and minor morbidity of 6.9% (n = 6), 14.0% (n = 12) and 26.7% (n = 23), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Diverting colostomy construction is a minimally invasive and safe treatment option for LSCO. It can serve as a definite palliative measure, as well as a bridge to elective surgery. A diverting colostomy as a bridge to surgery might even be a valid alternative for emergency resections, since mortality and morbidity rates following colostomy construction and delayed resection appear lower than reported outcomes following primary resection.

Evaluation of the patients with colorectal cancer undergoing emergent curative surgery

Background

The aim of our study is to evaluate perioperative and mid-term oncologic outcomes of the patients with colorectal cancer, who underwent emergent curative surgery.

Methods

The study included all patients with colorectal cancer, who underwent surgery for curative intent between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2014 in General Surgery Department of Kartal Training and Research Hospital. The patients were divided into two groups according to the type of admission (emergent or elective). The data of the patients were retrospectively collected with chart review. Demographic characteristics of the patients, ASA scores, emergent indications and surgical interventions, postoperative complications, pathological findings, oncological therapy, and follow-up findings were investigated.

Results

Fifty-one and 209 patients were evaluated in both groups, respectively. Rate of right sided and sigmoid/recto-sigmoid tumors were significantly higher in emergent group. Ostomy rate, early morbidity, ICU need, transfusion, and mortality rates in emergent group were significantly higher than elective group. Average length of hospital stay in emergent group was also significantly longer in elective group (11.2 ± 3.2 vs. 8.4 ± 2.4 days). The patients in emergent group had a much lower survival rate than those in elective group.

Conclusion

In our study, emergency presentation of colorectal cancer was found associated with increased morbidity, a longer length of stay, increased in-hospital mortality, advanced pathologic stage and worsened long term survival in even same stages.

Should patients With obstructing colorectal cancer have proximal diversion?

BACKGROUND

Up to 20% of patients with colorectal cancer present with obstruction. The goal of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of patients with obstructing colon cancer who underwent resection and primary anastomosis with or without proximal diversion.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Procedure Targeted Colectomy databases from 2012 to 2014 were reviewed. Patients undergoing colorectal resection with or without diverting ostomy for obstructing colorectal cancer were analyzed. Propensity score-matched cohorts of diverted and nondiverted patients were created accounting for patient characteristics. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, postoperative complications, and readmission.

RESULTS

There were 2,323 patients (92%) with no proximal diversion and 204 patients (8%) with proximal diversion. In univariate analysis, patients with colorectal resection with diversion were significantly more likely to have any complication (P = .001), sepsis (P = .01), and blood transfusion (P = .001). Diversion patients were also significantly more likely to be readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of the index procedure (P = .02). Proximal diversion was associated with any complication (P = .01), failure to wean off ventilator (P = .05), and longer length of stay (P = .01) in matched cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Proximal diversion in the setting of obstructive colorectal cancer is associated with higher rates of any complication, deep wound infection, sepsis, and readmission. Surgeons who perform a primary anastomosis with diversion for obstructing colorectal cancer should take into account the significant risk for postoperative complications.

Deviating colostomy construction versus stent placement as bridge to surgery for malignant left-sided colonic obstruction

BACKGROUND

Acute colonic decompression using a deviating colostomy (DC) or a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) has been shown to lead to fewer complications and permanent stomas compared to acute resection in elderly patients with malignant left-sided colonic obstruction (LSCO). However, no consensus exists on which decompression method is superior, especially in patients treated with curative intend. This retrospective study therefore aimed to compare both decompression methods in potentially curable LSCO patients.

METHODS

All LSCO patients treated with curative intent between 2004 and 2013 in two teaching hospitals were retrospectively identified. In one institution, a DC was the standard of care, whereas in the other all patients were treated with SEMS.

RESULTS

In total, 88 eligible LSCO patients with limited disease and curative treatment options were included; 51 patients had a SEMS placed and 37 patients a DC constructed. All patients eventually underwent a subsequent elective resection. In sum, 235 patients were excluded due to benign or inoperable disease. No significant differences were found for hospital stay, morbidity, disease-free and overall survival and mortality. Major complications were seen in 13/51 (25.5 %) patients in the SEMS group and were mostly due to stent dysfunction (n = 7). Also, one stent-related perforation occurred. Major complications occurred in 4/37 (10.8 %) patients in the DC group, including abdominal sepsis (n = 3) and wound dehiscence (n = 1). Long-term complication rate was significantly higher in the DC group (29.7 vs. 9.8 %, p = 0.01), mainly due to a high incisional hernia rate. Fewer patients had a temporary colostomy following elective resection after SEMS placement (62.2 vs. 17.6 %, p < 0.01). Permanent colostomy rate was not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

SEMS and DC are both effective decompression methods for curable LSCO patients with comparable short- and long-term oncological outcomes; however, more surgical procedures are performed after DC due to an increased number of temporary colostomies and incisional hernia repairs.