scholarly journals Comparison of short-term outcomes after elective surgery following endoscopic stent insertion and emergency surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 442-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gil Jae Lee ◽  
Hyo Jun Kim ◽  
Jeong-Heum Baek ◽  
Won-Suk Lee ◽  
Kwang An Kwon
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Emergency Surgery ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Stent Insertion ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Endoscopic Stent ◽  
Obstructive Colorectal Cancer

scholarly journals Safety evaluation of preoperative stent insertion and clinical analysis on comparison of outcomes between preoperative stent insertion and emergency surgery in the treatment of obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lijiang Han ◽  
Xinjiang Song ◽  
Bin Yu ◽  
Mingliang Zhou ◽  
Liping Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Emergency Surgery ◽  
Primary Anastomosis ◽  
Safety Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Analysis ◽  
Stent Insertion ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Colonic Lumen

Objective: To evaluate the safety of preoperative stent insertion and compare the short- and long-term outcomes between preoperative stent insertion and emergency surgery in the treatment of obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer. Methods: The clinical data of 302 patients who underwent surgery for obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer from January 2009 to May 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into two groups according to whether to receive stenting for the success rate and complications of stent insertion in colonic lumen by colonoscope, and the number of cases of primary resection and anastomosis, and short-term complications such as incision infection, anastomotic leakage, spleen tear and abdominal abscess as well as mortality and survival rate during hospitalization were compared. Results: The success rate of endoscopic nitinol alloy memorial stent insertion in colonic lumen was 97.62%, and the overall incidence of complications was 14.5%, of which the incidence of serious complications (perforation, stent migration) was 4.76%. The primary anastomosis rate was significantly higher in the stent insertion group (85.71%) than that in the emergency surgery group (36.24%). The overall complication rate in the stent insertion group (14 cases) was significantly lower than that in the emergency surgery group (102 cases). There was no significant difference between survival curves (P>0.05). Conclusion: Preoperative stent insertion in colonic lumen by colonoscope for decompression is an ideal auxiliary method in the treatment of obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer, and may increase primary anastomosis rate, avoid neostomy, reduce short-term complications, and improve the long-term survival compared to emergency surgery. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.3.1707 How to cite this:Han L, Song X, Yu B, Zhou M, Zhang L, Safety evaluation of preoperative stent insertion and clinical analysis on comparison of outcomes between preoperative stent insertion and emergency surgery in the treatment of obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer. Pak J Med Sci. 2020;36(3):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.3.1707 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

scholarly journals Comparison of safety between self-expanding metal stents as a bridge to surgery and emergency surgery based on pathology: a meta-analysis

BMC Surgery ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Hu ◽  
Jiajun Fan ◽  
Yifan Xv ◽  
Yingjie Hu ◽  
Yuan Ding ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Emergency Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Metal Stents ◽  
Bridge To Surgery ◽  
Sems Group ◽  
Obstructive Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Expanding Metal Stents

Abstract Background To explore the long-term oncological safety of using self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) as a bridge to surgery for acute obstructive colorectal cancer by comparing the pathological results of emergency surgery (ES) with elective surgery after the placement of SEMS. Methods Studies comparing SEMS as a bridge to surgery with emergency surgery for acute obstructive colorectal cancer were retrieved through the databases of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries, and a meta-analysis was conducted based on the pathological results of the two treatments. Risk ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the outcomes under random effects model. Results A total of 27 studies were included, including 3 randomized controlled studies, 2 prospective studies, and 22 retrospective studies, with a total of 3737 patients. The presence of perineural invasion (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.48, 0.71, P < 0.00001), lymphovascular invasion (RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.47, 0.99, P = 0.004) and vascular invasion (RR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.45, 0.99, P = 0.04) in SEMS group were significantly higher than those in ES group, and there was no significant difference in lymphatic invasion (RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.77, 1.09, P = 0.33). The number of lymph nodes harvested in SEMS group was significantly higher than that in ES group (MD = − 3.18, 95% CI − 4.47, − 1.90, P < 0.00001). While no significant difference was found in the number of positive lymph nodes (MD = − 0.11, 95% CI − 0.63, 0.42, P = 0.69) and N stage [N0 (RR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.92, 1.15, P = 0.60), N1 (RR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.87, 1.14, P = 0.91), N2 (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.77, 1.15, P = 0.53)]. Conclusions SEMS implantation in patients with acute malignant obstructive colorectal cancer may lead to an increase in adverse tumor pathological characteristics, and these characteristics are mostly related to the poor prognosis of colorectal cancer. Although the adverse effect of SEMS on long-term survival has not been demonstrated, their adverse effects cannot be ignored. The use of SEMS as the preferred treatment for patients with resectable obstructive colorectal cancer remains to be carefully weighed, especially when patients are young or the surgical risk is not very high.

Open surgery versus laparoscopic surgery after stent insertion for obstructive colorectal cancer

Surgery Today ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (12) ◽  
pp. 1383-1386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshiyuki Enomoto ◽  
Yoshihisa Saida ◽  
Kazuhiro Takabayashi ◽  
Sayaka Nagao ◽  
Emiko Takeshita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Stent Insertion ◽  
Obstructive Colorectal Cancer

scholarly journals Comparison of safety between self-expanding metal stents as a bridge to surgery and emergency surgery based on pathology: a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Hu ◽  
Jiajun Fan ◽  
Yifan Xv ◽  
Yingjie Hu ◽  
Yuan Ding ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Emergency Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Metal Stents ◽  
Bridge To Surgery ◽  
Sems Group ◽  
Obstructive Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Expanding Metal Stents

Abstract Background: To explore the long-term oncological safety of using self-expanding metal stents(SEMS) as a bridge to surgery for acute obstructive colorectal cancer by comparing the pathological results of emergency surgery(ES) with elective surgery after the placement of SEMS.Methods: Studies comparing SEMS as a bridge to surgery with emergency surgery for acute obstructive colorectal cancer were retrieved through the databases of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries, and a meta-analysis was conducted based on the pathological results of the two treatments. Risk ratios(OR) or mean differences(MD) with 95% confidence intervals(CI) were calculated for the outcomes under random effects model.Results: A total of 27 studies were included, including 3 randomized controlled studies, 2 prospective studies, and 22 retrospective studies, with a total of 3737 patients. The presence of perineural invasion(RR=0.58, 95% CI=0.48, 0.71, P<0.00001), lymphovascular invasion(RR=0.68, 95%CI=0.47,0.99, P=0.004) and vascular invasion(RR=0.66, 95%CI=0.45,0.99, P=0.04) in SEMS group were significantly higher than those in ES group, and there was no significant difference in lymphatic invasion(RR=0.92, 95%CI=0.77,1.09, P=0.33). The number of lymph nodes harvested in SEMS group was significantly higher than that in ES group(MD=-3.18, 95% CI=-4.47,-1.90, P<0.00001). While no significant difference was found in the number of positive lymph nodes(MD=-0.11, 95%CI=-0.63,0.42, P=0.69) and N stage[N0(RR=1.03, 95%CI=0.92,1.15, P=0.60), N1(RR=0.99, 95%CI=0.87,1.14, P=0.91), N2(RR=0.94, 95%CI=0.77,1.15, P=0.53)]. Conclusions: SEMS implantation in patients with acute malignant obstructive colorectal cancer may lead to an increase in adverse tumor pathological characteristics, and these characteristics are mostly related to the poor prognosis of colorectal cancer. Although the adverse effect of SEMS on long-term survival has not been demonstrated, their adverse effects cannot be ignored. The use of SEMS as the preferred treatment for patients with resectable obstructive colorectal cancer remains to be carefully weighed, especially when patients are young or the surgical risk is not very high.

scholarly journals 689 A Service Evaluation of Colonic Stent Procedures Over A 10 Year Period at University Hospital Bristol

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Y Embury-Young ◽  
F Caslake Holding ◽  
E Wates ◽  
J Shabbir
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Obstruction ◽  
Emergency Surgery ◽  
Large Bowel ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Symptom Relief ◽  
Service Evaluation ◽  
Large Bowel Obstruction ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Stent Insertion ◽  
Colonic Stent

Abstract Introduction The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) updated guidance in January 2020 and recommend colonic stent insertion for acute left-sided bowel obstruction as either palliative treatment or a bridge to elective surgery. Colonic stent insertion has shown improved outcomes in reducing hospital stay and stoma rate when compared to emergency surgery in patients presenting with large bowel obstruction. Objectives This service evaluation aimed to identify indications, complications, and outcomes of colonic stent insertion at University Hospital Bristol(UHB). Method Retrospective analysis of all colonic stent procedures performed at UHB between 1st January 2010 to 31st May 2020. Results 87 patients had a colonic stent procedure. 60(69%) were performed as an emergency and 27(33%) electives. Obstruction was secondary to a tumour in 84(97%) patients and diverticular strictures in 3(3%). 19(22%) had stent insertion as a bridge to elective surgery. 64(74%) stents were successfully deployed. 15(75%) required emergency surgery where the stent was unsuccessful. Complications occurred in 9(14%) successfully deployed stents, including: perforation(1;1%); per-rectal bleed(1;1%); dislodgement(1:1%); bacterial translocation(1;1%); tenesmus(2;2%); more than one stent required(3;3%). 30-day mortality was 11%. Conclusions The majority of colonic stent procedures at UHB were for patients presenting with acute large bowel obstruction secondary to malignancy. Few of these patients were suitable for surgery and stent insertion primarily for symptom relief. Where stent insertion is unsuccessful there is a high conversion (75%) to emergency surgery. Complications were observed in 14% of stent procedures and 30-day mortality was 11%.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document