Transanal decompression tube is superior to self-expandable metallic colonic stent for malignant colorectal obstruction: a retrospective study

Short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes of self-expandable metallic stent compared with tube decompression for obstructive colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Patients with obstructive colorectal cancer managed by emergency surgery show high morbidity, mortality, and stoma formation rates. Decompression modalities, including the self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) and tube drainage (TD), have been used to improve surgical outcomes. However, there have been limited studies comparing the 2 modalities. We performed a meta-analysis on short- and long-term outcomes between SEMS and TD.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. Data were pooled, and the overall effect size was calculated using random effect models. Outcome measures were perioperative short-term and 3-year survival outcomes.

Results

We included 20 nonrandomized studies that examined 2,047 patients in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed SEMS had better short-term outcomes in clinical success rate, decompression-related complications, laparoscopic surgery rate, stoma formation rate, and postoperative complication rate with a relative risk (RR) of 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.54; I2 = 20%), 0.32 (95% CI, 0.20-0.50; I2 = 0%), 0.47 (95% CI, 0.34-0.66; I2 = 87%), 0.34 (95% CI, 0.24-0.49; I2 = 52%), and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.89, I2 = 28%), respectively. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in 3-year overall survival (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.77-1.27; I2 = 0%).

Conclusion

Although the long-term oncologic impact of SEMS is still unclear compared with TD, the results of this meta-analysis may suggest that SEMS insertion can be performed more successfully and safely and may have benefits for short-term perioperative outcomes compared with TD. Further studies are warranted to provide more definitive survival results.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Self-expanding metal stents versus decompression tubes as a bridge to surgery for patients with obstruction caused by colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Using self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) and decompression tubes (DT) as a bridge-to-surgery (BTS) treatment may avoid emergency operations for patients with colorectal cancer-caused obstructions. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the two approaches.

METHODS

We systematically retrieved literature from January 1, 2000, to May 30, 2023, from the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed, Wanfang Data, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies of SEMS versus DT as BTS in colorectal cancer obstruction were selected. Risks of bias were assessed for RCTs and cohort studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2 and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions. Certainty of evidence was determined using the Graded Recommendation Assessment. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were used to analyze measurement data.

RESULTS

We included eight RCTs and eighteen cohort studies involving 2,061 patients (SEMS, 1,044; DT, 1,017). Pooled RCT and cohort data indicated the SEMS group had a significantly higher clinical success rate than the DT group (OR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.04, 3.81, P = 0.04), but no significant difference regarding technical success (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 0.56, 2.96, P = 0.55). SEMS had a shorter postoperative length of hospital stays (MD = - 4.47, 95% CI - 6.26, - 2.69, P < 0.00001), a lower rates of operation-related abdominal pain (OR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.05, 0.50, P = 0.002), intraoperative bleeding (MD = - 37.67, 95% CI - 62.73, - 12.60, P = 0.003), stoma creation (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.23, 0.73, P = 0.002) and long-term tumor recurrence rate than DT (OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.22, 0.99, P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SEMS and DT are both safe as BTS to avoid emergency surgery for patients with colorectal cancer obstruction. SEMS is preferable because of higher clinical success rates, lower rates of operation-related abdominal pain, intraoperative bleeding, stoma creation, and long-term tumor recurrence, as well as a shorter postoperative length of hospital stays. Trial registration CRD42022365951 .

Oncologic impact of colonic stents for obstructive left-sided colon cancer

Colonic stenting has had a significant positive impact on the management of obstructive left-sided colon cancer (OLCC) in terms of both palliative treatment and bridge-to-surgery (BTS). Notably, many studies have convincingly demonstrated the effectiveness of stenting as a BTS, resulting in improvements in short-term outcomes and quality of life, safety, and efficacy in subsequent curative surgery, and increased cost-effectiveness, whereas the safety of chemotherapy after stenting and the long-term outcomes of stenting as a BTS are controversial. Several studies have suggested an increased risk of perforation in patients receiving bevacizumab chemotherapy after colonic stenting. In addition, several pathological analyses have suggested a negative oncological impact of colonic stenting. In contrast, many recent studies have demonstrated that colonic stenting for OLCC does not negatively impact the safety of chemotherapy or long-term oncological outcomes. The updated version of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines released in 2020 included colonic stenting as a BTS for OLCC as a recommended treatment. It should be noted that the experience of endoscopists is involved in determining technical and clinical success rates and possibly oncological outcomes. This review discusses the positive and negative impacts of colonic stenting on OLCC treatment, particularly in terms of oncology.