Abstract
Background: For patients with colorectal cancer and malignant intestinal obstruction, it is still controversial to perform endoscopic intestinal stent placement followed by laparoscopic surgery. This study compares the endoscopic intestinal stent placement followed by laparoscopic surgery and emergency surgery in patients with colorectal cancer and malignant intestinal obstruction.Method: 11 compliant publications from Pubmed, Cochrane and Embase databases were analyzed using Revies Manager 5.2 software. SPSS 21 was used to retrospectively analyze 99 patients admitted to our center from 2014 to 2019.Results: There were significant differences between the two groups in three of the five criteria. In the SBTS group, the perioperative mortality rate was lower, with an OR of 0.46 (95% CI: 0.22-0.95, P=0.04), the incidence of postoperative wound infection was lower; OR was 0.44 (95% CI: 0.24-0.82, P=0.009); Postoperative hospital stay was shorter, MD was -2.07 (95% CI: -2.55--1.59, P<0.00001).Retrospective analysis of the clinical outcome differences between the SBTS group and ES group in our center: Compared to the ES group, the SBTS group displayed lower infection rate of surgical incision (χ2=3.94,P =0.04) ); no difference in the frequency of occurrence of anastomotic leakage (χ2=0.18,P=0.67), did not reduce perioperative mortality (χ2=0.94,P=0.33);shorter operating time (204.13±37.35 min) (t=5.08,P=0.000), lower intraoperative blood loss (155.65±94.90 ml) (t=3.90,P=0.001); and shorter postoperative hospital stay (12.91±5.47 d) (t=2.64, P=0.01).Conclusion: Compared the emergency surgery group, endoscopic intestinal stent placement followed by the laparoscopic surgery can reduce perioperative mortality, postoperative wound infection, intraoperative blood loss, and the length of postoperative hospital stay. There was no difference between the two methods as far as the incidence of posterior anastomotic leakage and operating time were concerned.