BACKGROUND: The use of colonic stents has significantly evolved over the last few years. Emergency surgery for colonic obstructions is usually associated with significant mortality, morbidity and often stoma formation. Colonic stents provide an alternative way to relieve colonic obstruction, and hence avoiding the risks associated with emergency surgery. This literature review aims to summarize the important current evidence regarding colorectal stenting and show whether further evaluation of the procedure is required. RESULTS: The available large number of non-randomized studies suggests that Self-Expandable-Metal-Stents (SEMS) placement for acute colonic obstruction could be considered as safe and effective alternative to surgery in experienced hands either as a bridge to surgery or as a palliative measure. This evidence has led to SEMS being widely adopted. However, randomized evidence has begun to show the defects that are inherent in the low level evidence that has so far supported SEMS use and it may be that reports of randomized controlled trials may clarify the patient population where SEMS placement is appropriate. CONCLUSION: While we are still waiting for the outcome of the multicentre randomized controlled trials in the UK and Europe, clinicians must be aware of the current evidence limitations and apply SEMS use pragmatically.
BACKGROUND: The use of colonic stents has significantly evolved over the last few years. Emergency surgery for colonic obstructions is usually associated with significant mortality, morbidity and often stoma formation. Colonic stents provide an alternative way to relieve colonic obstruction, and hence avoiding the risks associated with emergency surgery. This literature review aims to summarize the important current evidence regarding colorectal stenting and show whether further evaluation of the procedure is required. RESULTS: The available large number of non-randomized studies suggests that Self-Expandable-Metal-Stents (SEMS) placement for acute colonic obstruction could be considered as safe and effective alternative to surgery in experienced hands either as a bridge to surgery or as a palliative measure. This evidence has led to SEMS being widely adopted. However, randomized evidence has begun to show the defects that are inherent in the low level evidence that has so far supported SEMS use and it may be that reports of randomized controlled trials may clarify the patient population where SEMS placement is appropriate. CONCLUSION: While we are still waiting for the outcome of the multicentre randomized controlled trials in the UK and Europe, clinicians must be aware of the current evidence limitations and apply SEMS use pragmatically.
Authors: Alberto Arezzo; Carmen Balague; Eduardo Targarona; Felice Borghi; Giorgio Giraudo; Luigi Ghezzo; Antonio Arroyo; Javier Sola-Vera; Paolo De Paolis; Maurizio Bossotti; Elisa Bannone; Edoardo Forcignanò; Marco Augusto Bonino; Roberto Passera; Mario Morino Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 4.584