Optimal management of malignant left-sided large bowel obstruction: do international guidelines agree?

Impact of self-expanding metal stents on long-term survival outcomes as a bridge to surgery in patients with colon cancer obstruction: Current state and future prospects

Since self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) were first introduced in acute colon cancer obstruction, the increased rate of primary anastomosis and improved quality of life following SEMS placement have been clearly shown. However, it was demonstrated that SEMS are associated with higher recurrence rates. Although several trials have shown that overall and disease-free survival in patients following SEMS placement is similar with patients undergoing emergency surgery, obstruction and a high incidence of recurrence imposed many concerns. The optimal time interval from SEMS to surgery is still a matter of debate. Some studies have recommended a time interval of ~2 weeks between SEMS insertion and elective surgery. A prolonged interval of time from SEMS insertion to elective surgery and the administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has been proposed. SEMS-NAC might have advantages for improving the surgical and long-term survival outcomes of patients with acute colon cancer obstruction, which is an optional approach in the management of acute colon cancer obstruction.

The use of self-expanding metallic stents in the management of benign colonic obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Patients presenting with large bowel obstruction (LBO) frequently undergo emergency surgery that is associated with significant morbidity. In malignant LBO, endoscopic approaches with placement is a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS), have been proposed to prevent emergency surgery and act as a bridge to an elective procedure-with the intention of avoiding a stoma and reducing morbidity. This systematic review aims to assess the quality and outcomes of data available on the use of SEMS in benign causes of colonic obstruction.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the protocol was registered on Prospero (ID: CRD42021239363). PUBMED, MEDLINE, HMIC, CINAHL, AMED, EMBASE, APA and Cochrane databases were searched. Studies were assessed for quality utilising the MINORS criteria. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using random effects models.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included for analysis. 300 patients were included with an average age of 68, and a male predominance of 57%. The quality of the papers included were at risk of bias. The pooled rate of technical success of procedure was 94.4% (95% CI 90.5-96.8%) The pooled rate of clinical success was 77.6% (95% CI: 66.6-85.7%). Adverse effects were low, with perforation 8.8% (4.5-16.6%), recurrence 26.5% (17.2-38.5%) and stent migration 22.5% (14.1-33.8%).

DISCUSSION

This systematic review demonstrated that SEMS for benign colonic obstruction can be a safe and successful procedure. The utilisation of SEMS in malignant disease as a bridge to surgery has been well documented. Whilst the limitations of the data interpreted are appreciated, we postulate that SEMS could be utilised to decompress patients acutely and allow pre-operative optimisation, leading to a more elective surgery with less subsequent morbidity.

Management of obstructed colorectal carcinoma in an emergency setting: An update

Colorectal carcinoma is common, particularly on the left side. In 20% of patients, obstruction and ileus may be the first clinical manifestations of a carcinoma that has advanced (stage II, III or even IV). Diagnosis is based on clinical presentation, plain abdominal radiogram, computed tomography (CT), CT colonography and positron emission tomography/CT. The best management strategy in terms of short-term operative or interventional and long-term oncological outcomes remains unknown. For the most common left-sided obstruction, the first choice should be either emergency surgery or endoscopic decompression by self-expendable metal stents or tubes. The operative plan should be either one-stage or two-stage resection. One-stage resection with on-table bowel decompression and irrigation can be accompanied or not accompanied by proximal defunctioning stoma (colostomy or ileostomy). Primary anastomosis is more convenient but has increased risks of anastomotic leakage and morbidity. Two-stage resection (Hartmann's procedure) is safer and the most widely used despite temporally affecting quality of life. Damage control surgery in high-risk frail patients is less frequently performed since it can be successfully substituted with endoscopic stenting or tubing. For the less common right-sided obstruction, one-stage surgical resection is more beneficial than endoscopic decompression. The role of minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotic) is a subject of debate. Emergency laparoscopic-assisted management is advantageous to some extent but requires much expertise due to inherent difficulties in dissecting the distended colon and the risk of rupture and subsequent septic complications. The decompressing stent as a bridge to elective surgery more substantially decreases the risks of morbidity and mortality than emergency surgery for decompression and has equivalent medium-term overall survival and disease-free survival rates. Its combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation may have a positive effect on long-term oncological outcomes. Management plans are crucial and must be individualized to better fit each case.

Palliative Emergency General Surgery

Acute care surgeons encounter patients experiencing surgical emergencies related to advanced malignancy, catastrophic vascular events, or associated with multisystem organ failure. The acute nature is a factor in establishing a relationship between surgeon, patient, and family. Surgeons must use effective communication skills, empathy, and a knowledge of legal and ethical foundations. Training in palliative care principles is limited in many medical school and residency curricula. We offer examples of clinical situations facing acute care surgeons and discuss evidence-based recommendations to facilitate successful treatment and outcomes.

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.

Acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: Is there a role for endoscopic stenting?

The therapy of left-sided malignant colonic obstruction continues to be one of the largest problems in clinical practice. Numerous studies on colonic stenting for neoplastic colonic obstruction have been reported in the last decades. Thereby the role of self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) in the treatment of malignant colonic obstruction has become better defined. However, numerous prospective and retrospective investigations have highlighted serious concerns about a possible worse outcome after endoscopic colorectal stenting as a bridge to surgery, particularly in case of perforation. This review analyzes the most recent evidence in order to highlight pros and cons of SEMS placement in left-sided malignant colonic obstruction.

Colorectal Cancer-The "Parent" of Low Bowel Obstruction

Introduction: Despite the improvement of early diagnosis methods for multiple pathological entities belonging to the digestive tract, bowel obstruction determined by multiple etiologies represents an important percentage of surgical emergencies. General data: Although sometimes obstructive episodes are possible in the early stages of colorectal cancer, the most commonly installed intestinal obstruction has the significance of an advanced evolutionary stage of neoplastic disease. Development of Obstructive Mechanism: The spontaneous evolution of colorectal cancer is always burdened by complications. The most common complication is low bowel obstruction, found in approximately 20% of the cases of colorectal cancer, and it can occur either relatively abruptly, or is preceded by initially discrete premonitory symptoms, non-specific (until advanced evolutionary stages) and generally neglected or incorrectly interpreted. Success in the complex treatment of a low neoplastic obstruction is conditioned by a complete diagnosis, adequate pre-operative preparation, a surgical act adapted to the case (in one, two or three successive stages), and dynamic postoperative care. The moment of surgery should be chosen with great care and is the result of the experience of the anesthetic-surgical team. The operative act must be adapted to the case and has as its main objective the resolution of intestinal obstruction and only in a secondary way the resolution of the generating disease. Conclusions: The therapeutic measures adopted (medical-surgical) must have a dynamic character in accordance with the particular situation of the patient. Except for certain or probably benign etiologies, the possibility of colorectal neoplasia should always be considered, in low obstructions, regardless of the patient's age.

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.

Colonic stent for bridge to surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: A review of the literature after 2020

It has been found that 8%-29% of colorectal cancers are obstructive. The use of “stent as bridge to surgery” is one of the most debated topics in obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer management. The endoscopic placement of a self-expanding metallic stent as bridge to surgery (BTS) could turn an emergency surgery to an elective one, increasing the number of primary anastomoses instead of stoma and facilitating the laparoscopic approach instead of an open one. However, in recent years the possible risk of perforations and microperforations facilitating cancer spread related to the use of self-expanding metallic stent for BTS has been highlighted. Therefore, despite the useful short-term outcomes related to BTS, the recent literature has focused on long-term outcomes investigating the disease-free survival, the recurrence rate and the overall survival. Due to discordant data, international guidelines are still conflicting, and the debate is still open. There is not agreement about using self-expanding metallic stent for BTS as the gold standard.

Presepsin (soluble CD14 subtype) as a risk factor for the development of infectious and inflammatory complications in operated colorectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

In this pilot study the dynamic of presepsin (soluble CD14 subtype, sCD14-ST) in blood serum was assessed as a possible risk factor for the development of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and infectious and inflammatory complications in operated colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

To determine sCD14-ST by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method venous blood was taken 1 hour before surgery and 72 hours after it (3rd day). The presence of SIRS and organ dysfunctions (ODs) according to the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scale were assessed.

RESULTS

Thiry-six patients with colorectal cancer were enrolled in the study. sCD14-ST level before surgery was 269.8±103.1 pg/mL (interquartile range [IQR], 196.7-327.1 pg/mL). Despite the presepsin level on the 3rd day being higher (291.1±136.5 pg/mL; IQR, 181.2-395.5 pg/mL), there was no statistical significance in its dynamics (P=0.437). sCD14-ST value both before surgery and on the 3rd day after it was significantly higher in patients with bowel obstruction (P=0.038 and P=0.007). sCD14-ST level before surgery above 330 pg/mL showed an increase in the probability of complications, SIRS, and OD (odds ratio [OR], 5.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-28.2; OR, 7.0; 95% CI, 1.3-36.7; and OR, 13.0; 95% CI, 1.1-147.8; respectively). Patients with OD had higher levels on the 3rd day after surgery (P=0.049).

CONCLUSION

sCD14-ST level in operated colorectal cancer patients was much higher if they were admitted with complication like bowel obstruction. Higher preoperative levels of sCD14-ST increase the probability of postoperative complications, SIRS, and OD. Therefore, further studies with large sample size are needed.

Are Thyroid Functions Affected in Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children?

OBJECTIVE

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), associated with Coronavirus disease-2019, is defined as the presence of documented fever, inflammation, and at least two signs of multisystem involvement and lack of an alternative microbial diagnosis in children who have recent or current Severe acute respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus-2 infection or exposure. In this study, we evaluated thyroid function tests in pediatric cases with MIS-C in order to understand how the hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid axis was affected and to examine the relationship between disease severity and thyroid function.

METHODS

This case-control study was conducted between January 2021 and September 2021. The patient group consisted of 36 MIS-C cases, the control group included 72 healthy children. Demographic features, clinical findings, inflammatory markers, thyroid function tests, and thyroid antibody levels in cases of MIS-C were recorded. Thyroid function tests were recorded in the healthy control group.

RESULTS

When MIS-C and healthy control groups were compared, free triiodothyronine (fT3) level was lower in MIS-C cases, while free thyroxine (fT4) level was found to be lower in the healthy group (p<0.001, p=0.001, respectively). Although the fT4 level was significantly lower in controls, no significant difference was found compared with the age-appropriate reference intervals (p=0.318). When MIS-C cases were stratified by intensive care requirement, fT3 levels were also lower in those admitted to intensive care and also in those who received steroid treatment (p=0.043, p<0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Since the endocrine system critically coordinates and regulates important metabolic and biochemical pathways, investigation of endocrine function in MIS-C may be beneficial. These results show an association between low fT3 levels and both diagnosis of MIS-C and requirement for intensive care. Further studies are needed to predict the prognosis and develop a long-term follow-up management plan.

Is it possible to adopt the same oncological approach in urgent surgery for colon cancer?

BACKGROUND

Locoregional complications may occur in up to 30% of patients with colon cancer. As they are frequent events in the natural history of this disease, there should be a concern in offering an oncologically adequate surgical treatment to these patients.

AIM

To compare the oncological radicality of surgery for colon cancer between urgent and elective cases.

METHODS

One-hundred and eighty-nine consecutive patients with non-metastatic colon adenocarcinoma were studied over two years in a single institution, who underwent surgical resection as the first therapeutic approach, with 123 elective and 66 urgent cases. The assessment of oncological radicality was performed by analyzing the extension of the longitudinal margins of resection, the number of resected lymph nodes, and the percentage of surgeries with 12 or more resected lymph nodes. Other clinicopathological variables were compared between the two groups in terms of sex, age, tumor location, type of urgency, surgical access, staging, compromised lymph nodes rate, differentiation grade, angiolymphatic and perineural invasion, and early mortality.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the elective and urgency group concerning the longitudinal margin of resection (average of 6.1 in elective vs 7.3 cm in urgency, P = 0.144), number of resected lymph nodes (average of 17.7 in elective vs 16.6 in urgency, P = 0.355) and percentage of surgeries with 12 or more resected lymph nodes (75.6% in elective vs 77.3% in urgency, P = 0.798). It was observed that the percentage of patients aged 80 and over was higher in the urgency group (13.0% in elective vs 25.8% in urgency, P = 0.028), and the early mortality was 4.9% in elective vs 15.2% in urgency (P = 0.016, OR: 3.48, 95%CI: 1.21–10.06). Tumor location (P = 0.004), surgery performed (P = 0.016) and surgical access (P < 0.001) were also different between the two groups. There was no difference in other clinicopathological variables studied.

CONCLUSION

Oncological radicality of colon cancer surgery may be achieved in both emergency and elective procedures.

Differences in the management of patients requiring an emergency resection for colonic cancer in two European populations

Background

Patients with colonic cancer who require emergency colonic cancer surgery often experience poorer outcomes compared with their elective counterparts. In this setting, several treatments approaches are available. In 2009, Danish guidelines recommended treatment with stent for obstruction in left-sided tumours as a bridge to surgery, if expertise is accessible. The aim of this study was to compare the use of elective and emergency resections for colonic cancer and postoperative mortality in two similar demographic populations.

Methods

All patients who underwent a major resection for colonic cancer, between 2005 and 2016 in Denmark and Yorkshire (UK) were identified. The proportion undergoing emergency surgery, the proportion receiving a stent procedure before their resection, and 30-day postoperative mortality were compared between the populations. Logistic regression was used to determine changes in the proportion of those undergoing emergency surgery and 30-day postoperative mortality.

Results

Out of 45 397 patients treated during the study interval, 41 880 were selected. Emergency surgery decreased in Denmark from 16.6 per cent in 2005–07 to 12.9 per cent in 2014–16, but increased in Yorkshire (13.5 per cent to 16.8 per cent). Danish patients with left-sided tumours were less likely to undergo emergency surgery (risk ratio 0.90, 95 per cent c.i. 0.82 to 0.99) and an increase in stent use coincided with a statistically significant decrease in emergency surgery in these patients. Thirty-day postoperative mortality in all resections (elective and emergency) decreased in both populations, but a larger decrease was observed in Denmark (7.7 per cent to 3.0 per cent in Denmark and 7.1 per cent to 3.3 per cent in Yorkshire).

Conclusion

Patients in Denmark experienced a reduction in the use of emergency resection and increase in stenting procedures, following the policy implemented in some departments of converting potential emergency resections into elective resections.

Large bowel obstruction caused by a colonic polyp

A large bowel obstruction (LBO) is an emergency condition that requires early diagnosis and prompt treatment, and it is also crucial to identify the cause of the obstruction. Here, we describe a 76-year-old woman who presented to the hospital with a 1-day history of abdominal pain and vomiting and was diagnosed with LBO. Endoscopic findings showed that the cause of the LBO was initially determined to be a Bormann Type I tumour in the sigmoid colon. However, the surgery was performed later; the pathological findings led to the diagnosis of colonic obstruction caused by a colonic polyp in the sigmoid colon narrowed by chronic diverticulitis. Colonic polyps rarely cause LBO. Poor observation due to colonic stenosis can mask the morphology of the lesion. In cases of LBO, colonic polyps should be differentially diagnosed in addition to colon cancer.

Dual Bowel Obstruction: A Rare Case of Gallstone Ileus and Colonic Adenocarcinoma

Bowel obstruction is a surgical emergency that leads to a high rate of admissions. Twenty percent of patients with acute abdominal pain will be diagnosed with bowel obstruction; eighty percent of them are of small origin. It is classified based on etiology to either mechanical or functional. Mechanical obstruction is a physical barrier that obstructs the passage of bowel content; it could be caused by adhesion, tumors, volvulus, hernias, strictures, and gallstone ileus. Functional obstruction is usually due to impaired peristalsis or metabolic disorders.

In this article, we report a case of an 80-year-old gentleman with no previous surgical history who was found to have a bowel obstruction. Diagnostic imaging and colonoscopy showed that his clinical presentation was due to gallstone ileus with cholecysto-enteric fistula and sigmoid mass. He underwent exploratory laparotomy with small bowel resection and sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis and diverting ileostomy. The final pathology showed early moderately differentiated polyp adenocarcinoma T1N0 and was kept on surveillance.

The novelty of this case is the presentation of two different abdominal pathologies, which lead to large and small bowel obstruction. Thus, the management decision was challenging, and a thorough workup is advisable in such cases.

Lipopolysaccharide-binding protein as a risk factor for development of infectious and inflammatory postsurgical complications in colorectal cancer paients

Aim of the study

In this pilot study lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP) levels were assessed as a possible risk factor for development of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and infectious and inflammatory complications in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients after surgery.

Material and methods

For LBP determination venous blood was taken 1 hour before the surgery and 72 hours after it. All patients were stratified by the presence or absence of acute bowel obstruction (ABO), SIRS and complications.

Results

36 patients with CRC participated in the study. The LBP level before surgery was 879.8 ± 221.8 ng/ml (interquartile range (IQR) 749.3-1028.8); on the 3^rd day it was 766.5 ± 159.4 ng/ml (IQR 669.5-847.6), which was a statistically significant decrease (p = 0.004). A decrease in LBP level by more than 280 ng/ml increases the probability of SIRS and complications in operated CRC patients (OR 6.6, 95% CI: 1.1-40.9 and OR 12.0, 95% CI: 1.8-80.4, respectively). In patients with ABO in the presence of SIRS, the LBP value decreased more than in those without SIRS (p = 0.046).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the LBP level in the operated CRC patients tends to decrease on the 3^rd day after surgery. A bigger decrease in LBP level increases the probability of SIRS and postoperative infectious and inflammatory complications. Therefore, further studies with larger numbers of patients are required.

Which prognostic factors are important for long-term outcomes in symptomatic obstructive colon cancer? A multi-institutional retrospective cohort study

Purpose

The prognostic factors in obstructive colon cancer have not been clearly identified. We aimed to identify the prognostic factor to establish optimal treatment strategy in obstructive colon cancer.

Methods

Patients who underwent surgery for primary colon cancer in stages II and III with symptomatic obstruction from 2004 to 2010 in six hospitals were retrospectively collected. Clinicopathological and surgical outcomes were compared between stent insertion and emergent surgery group. Multiple regression analysis and survival curve analysis were used to identify the prognostic factors in symptomatic obstructive colon cancer.

Results

Among 210 patients, 168 patients (80.0%) underwent stent insertion followed by surgery and 42 patients (20.0%) underwent emergent surgery. Laparoscopic approach (55.4% vs. 23.8%, p < 0.001) and adequate lymph node (LN) harvest (≥12) (93.5% vs. 69.0%, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in stent insertion group. In multiple regression analysis, emergent surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 2.153; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.031–4.495), vascular invasion (HR, 6.257; 95% CI, 2.784–14.061), and omitting adjuvant chemotherapy (HR, 3.107; 95% CI, 1.394–6.925) were independent poor prognostic factors in 5-year overall survival, and N stage (N1 HR, 3.095; 95% CI, 1.316–7.284; N2 HR, 4.156; 95% CI, 1.671–10.333) was the only poor prognostic factor in 5-year disease-free survival.

Conclusion

In symptomatic obstructive colon cancer, emergent surgery, N stage, vascular invasion, and omission of adjuvant chemotherapy were independent poor prognostic factors. Stent insertion is suggested as the initial treatment for symptomatic obstructive colon cancer, and adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended, especially when vascular invasion or LN metastasis is confirmed.

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in emergency colorectal surgery

AIM

There is a requirement for an expansive and up to date review of the management of emergency colorectal conditions seen in adults. The primary objective is to provide detailed evidence-based guidelines for the target audience of general and colorectal surgeons who are responsible for an adult population and who practise in Great Britain and Ireland.

METHODS

Surgeons who are elected members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Emergency Surgery Subcommittee were invited to contribute various sections to the guidelines. They were directed to produce a pathology-based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence-based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after two votes were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

All aspects of care (excluding abdominal trauma) for emergency colorectal conditions have been included along with 122 recommendations for management.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence-based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of emergency colorectal conditions and should serve as practical text for clinicians managing colorectal conditions in the emergency setting.

Obstructing Left-Sided Colonic Cancer: Is Endoscopic Stenting a Bridge to Surgery or a Bridge to Nowhere?

For the 8-29% colorectal cancers that initially manifest with obstruction, emergency surgery (ES) was traditionally considered the only available therapy, despite high morbidity and mortality rates and the need for colostomy creation. More recently, malignant obstruction of the left colon can be temporized by endoscopic placement of a self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS), used as bridge to surgery (BTS), facilitating a laparoscopic approach and increasing the likelihood that a primary anastomosis instead of stoma would be used. Despite these attractive outcomes, the superiority of the BTS approach is not clearly established. Few authors have stressed the potential cancer risk associated with perforations that may occur during endoscopic stent placement, facilitating neoplastic spread and negatively impacting prognosis. For this reason, the current literature focuses on long-term oncologic outcomes such as disease-free survival, overall survival and recurrence rate that do seem not to differ between the ES and BTS approaches. This lack of consensus has spawned differing and sometimes discordant guidelines worldwide. In conclusion, 20 years after the first description of a colonic stent as BTS, the debate is still open, but the growing number of articles about the use of SEMS as a BTS signifies a great interest in the topic. We hope that these data will finally converge on a single set of recommendations supporting a management strategy with well-demonstrated superiority.

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.

Colonic stents for malignant bowel obstruction: current status and future prospects

Introduction: Although more than two decades are already passed from the first description of this technique, the debate remains open on the role of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) placement in the management of malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). According to most recent data, SEMS placement is considered a safe and effective alternative treatment as a bridge to surgery(BTS). In addition, stent placement should be considered as primary option for palliative treatment of obstructing cancer.Areas covered: Current status, indication, technique, oncological outcomes, advantages, and risks of SEMS placement in MBO were reviewed.Expert commentary: The placement of colonic SEMS for palliation and for BTS in patients with MBO has been increasingly reported and it seems to have several advantages over emergency surgery. Substantial concerns of tumor seeding following SEMS placement, especially in case of perforation, have been raised in numerous studies. Actually, no significant differences are reported in oncologic long-term survival between patients undergoing stent placement as a BTS and those undergoing emergency surgery. Considering all the mentioned factors, indication for colorectal stenting should be evaluated only in highly specialized centers, in the context of multidisciplinary approach where risks and benefits of stenting are carefully weighed, especially in the BTS setting.