Self-expanding metallic stent insertion in the proximal colon

Efficacy and Safety Analysis of Emergency Endoscopic Self-Expanding Metal Stent Placement Without Fluoroscopic Assistance for Right-Sided Colonic Cancer Obstruction

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, surgical treatment is recommended for right-sided colonic cancer obstruction (RCCO); however, the literature comparing surgical or non-surgical procedures is lacking.

METHODS

Patients included in this study were divided into two groups: one group received elective surgery after self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) placement, i.e., the bridge to surgery (BTS) group, and one group received emergency surgery (ES).

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were included in the BTS group and 60 patients underwent ES. The technical and clinical success rates for SEMS placement were 100% and 88.6%, respectively, while the short-term complication rates were 51.4% and 33.3% for the BTS and ES groups, respectively (p = 0.082). Overall, 2.9% and 3.3% of postoperative deaths occurred in the BTS and ES groups (p = 1.000). The 1-year overall survival (OS) rates were 91.4% and 88.3% (p = 0.840), 3-year OS rates were 85.7% and 81.7% (p = 0.860), and 5-year OS rates were 82.9% and 76.7% (p = 0.620) in the BTS and ES groups, respectively. No tumor recurrence was found in the BTS group but seven recurrences were found in the ES group (11.7%) [p = 0.091]. Laparoscopic surgery was chosen by 42.9% of patients in the BTS group and 26.7% of patients in the ES group (p = 0.104); however, the length of hospital stay (p = 0.001) was longer in the BTS group.

CONCLUSIONS

In the two groups, no differences were found in terms of postoperative complications and mortality as well as OS. The BTS group preferred to perform laparoscopic surgery and the technical success rate of stenting was high, therefore SEMS for RCCO was considered safe and feasible.

Endoscopic luminal stenting: Current applications and future perspectives

Endoscopic luminal stenting (ELS) represents a minimally invasive option for the management of malignant obstruction along the gastrointestinal tract. Previous studies have shown that ELS can provide rapid relief of symptoms related to esophageal, gastric, small intestinal, colorectal, biliary, and pancreatic neoplastic strictures without compromising cancer patients’ overall safety. As a result, in both palliative and neoadjuvant settings, ELS has largely surpassed radiotherapy and surgery as a first-line treatment modality. Following the abovementioned success, the indications for ELS have gradually expanded. To date, ELS is widely used in clinical practice by well-trained endoscopists in managing a wide variety of diseases and complications, such as relieving non-neoplastic obstructions, sealing iatrogenic and non-iatrogenic perforations, closing fistulae and treating post-sphincterotomy bleeding. The abovementioned development would not have been achieved without corresponding advances and innovations in stent technology. However, the technological landscape changes rapidly, making clinicians’ adaptation to new technologies a real challenge. In our mini-review article, by systematically reviewing the relevant literature, we discuss current developments in ELS with regard to stent design, accessories, techniques, and applications, expanding the research basis that was set by previous studies and highlighting areas that need to be further investigated.

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Clinical outcome of self-expandable metal stent placement in the management of malignant proximal colon obstruction

Background/Aims

There are limited data regarding the clinical outcomes of self-expandable metal stents in the treatment of proximal colon obstruction. We compared the clinical outcomes of stent placement in patients with malignant proximal to distal colon obstructions.

Methods

We reviewed medical records from 37 consecutive patients from three institutions (19 men; mean age, 72 years) who underwent endoscopic stent placement at a malignant obstruction of the proximal colon. We also examined the records from 99 patients (50 men; mean age, 65 years) who underwent endoscopic stent placement for a distal colon obstruction. Technical success, clinical improvements, complications and stent patency were compared between treatments.

Results

The technical success rate tended to be lower in stents inserted to treat proximal colon obstructions than in those used to treat distal colon obstructions (86% vs 97%, p=0.06). Clinical improvement was achieved in 78% of patients (29/37) with proximal colonic stenting and in 91% of patients (90/99) with distal colonic stenting (p=0.08). Complications (24% vs 27%), stent migration (8% vs 8%) and stent reocclusion rates (11% vs 17%) did not differ significantly between groups. Two cases of bowel perforation related to stenting (5%) occurred in patients with proximal colonic stenting.

Conclusions

The technical success and clinical improvement associated with self-expandable metal stents used to treat proximal colon obstruction tend to be lower than cases of distal colon obstruction. Technical failure is an important cause of poor clinical improvement in patients with proximal colon stenting. Complication rates and stent patency appear to be similar in both groups.

Factors associated with the long-term outcome of a self-expandable colon stent used for palliation of malignant colorectal obstruction

BACKGROUND

The placement of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) is a safe and effective definitive procedure for the palliation of malignant colorectal obstruction. In this study, the clinical outcomes, including the technical and clinical success rates, and the risk factors associated with the long-term outcomes of palliative SEMS were evaluated.

METHODS

From February 2002 to April 2008, 39 patients (18 men and 21 women) with malignant colorectal obstruction underwent placement of uncovered or covered stents under fluoroscopic or endoscopic guidance. The mean age of the patients was 64.5 +/- 14.6 years (range, 37-96 years).

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 100% (39/39), and the clinical success rate was 87.2% (34/39). Five cases had failed relief of the obstruction due to the development of migration in two patients, two malfunctions, and one perforation. Four patients experienced late complications: migration managed with a palliative colostomy in two patients, tumor ingrowth managed successfully with a second stent in one patient, perforation with an intraabdominal abscess at the upper margin of the stent 4 months after stenting in one patient. The location of the obstruction and the length of the stent were significant factors associated with a good outcome. Shorter stents (<10 cm) had better outcomes than longer stents (>or=10 cm; p = 0.008), and patients with a distal colorectal obstruction had better outcomes than those with a proximal colorectal obstruction (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

Patients with bowel obstruction involving a short segment and those with a distal obstruction had better stent outcomes.