Su Jin Kim1, Hyung Wook Kim2, Su Bum Park3, Dae Hwan Kang3, Cheol Woong Choi3, Byeong Jun Song3, Joung Boom Hong3, Dong Jun Kim3, Byung Soo Park4, Gyung Mo Son4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Beomeo-ri, Mulgeum-eup, Yangsan-si, Gyeongsangnam-do, Yangsan, 626-770, Korea. pmcac@hanmail.net. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Beomeo-ri, Mulgeum-eup, Yangsan-si, Gyeongsangnam-do, Yangsan, 626-770, Korea. mdkhwook@gmail.com. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Beomeo-ri, Mulgeum-eup, Yangsan-si, Gyeongsangnam-do, Yangsan, 626-770, Korea. 4. Department of Surgery, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic colorectal stenting may be performed as a bridge to surgery in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction, and has been reported to be associated with a high rate of successful primary anastomosis, low rate of stoma formation, and shorter hospital stay. However, the results of recent studies suggest that colorectal stenting could potentially worsen the prognosis. This study aimed to compare outcomes between patients who underwent colorectal stenting as a bridge to surgery and patients who underwent curative surgery only for malignant colorectal obstruction. METHODS: This study included patients with malignant colorectal obstruction and symptomatic bowel dilatation who were treated by stenting as a bridge to surgery (stent group, n = 27) or surgical resection only (surgery-only group, n = 29) between May 2009 and May 2012. The short-term outcomes evaluated were the primary anastomosis rate, length of hospital stay, and rates of emergency and open surgery. The long-term outcomes evaluated were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: The primary outcomes were similar in the two groups. There were no significant differences between the stent and surgery-only groups in 3-year OS (85.2 vs. 82.8%; p = 0.655) or 3-year RFS (80.7 vs. 78.6%; p = 0.916). The odds ratio for seeded metastasis after perforation either during or after stent placement was 46.0 (95% CI, 2.0-1,047.8; p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal stenting as a bridge to surgery showed no significant short- or long-term benefits compared with surgery only, and was associated with peritoneal seeding after perforation. Stenting before surgery should therefore only be considered in patients with a high risk of complications associated with emergency surgery.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic colorectal stenting may be performed as a bridge to surgery in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction, and has been reported to be associated with a high rate of successful primary anastomosis, low rate of stoma formation, and shorter hospital stay. However, the results of recent studies suggest that colorectal stenting could potentially worsen the prognosis. This study aimed to compare outcomes between patients who underwent colorectal stenting as a bridge to surgery and patients who underwent curative surgery only for malignant colorectal obstruction. METHODS: This study included patients with malignant colorectal obstruction and symptomatic bowel dilatation who were treated by stenting as a bridge to surgery (stent group, n = 27) or surgical resection only (surgery-only group, n = 29) between May 2009 and May 2012. The short-term outcomes evaluated were the primary anastomosis rate, length of hospital stay, and rates of emergency and open surgery. The long-term outcomes evaluated were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: The primary outcomes were similar in the two groups. There were no significant differences between the stent and surgery-only groups in 3-year OS (85.2 vs. 82.8%; p = 0.655) or 3-year RFS (80.7 vs. 78.6%; p = 0.916). The odds ratio for seeded metastasis after perforation either during or after stent placement was 46.0 (95% CI, 2.0-1,047.8; p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal stenting as a bridge to surgery showed no significant short- or long-term benefits compared with surgery only, and was associated with peritoneal seeding after perforation. Stenting before surgery should therefore only be considered in patients with a high risk of complications associated with emergency surgery.
Authors: Jeanin E van Hooft; Emo E van Halsema; Geoffroy Vanbiervliet; Regina G H Beets-Tan; John M DeWitt; Fergal Donnellan; Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Robert G T Glynne-Jones; Cesare Hassan; Javier Jiménez-Perez; Søren Meisner; V Raman Muthusamy; Michael C Parker; Jean-Marc Regimbeau; Charles Sabbagh; Jayesh Sagar; Pieter J Tanis; Jo Vandervoort; George J Webster; Gianpiero Manes; Marc A Barthet; Alessandro Repici Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2014-10-17 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: H S Tilney; R E Lovegrove; S Purkayastha; P S Sains; G K Weston-Petrides; A W Darzi; P P Tekkis; A G Heriot Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2006-12-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Carlos Bustamante Recuenco; Javier García Septiem; Javier Arias Díaz; Israel John Thuissard Vasallo; Alejandro Andonaegui de la Madriz; Virginia Jiménez Carneros; Jose Luis Ramos Rodríguez; José María Jover Navalón; Francisco Javier Jiménez Miramón Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Roberto Cirocchi; Alberto Arezzo; Paolo Sapienza; Daniele Crocetti; Davide Cavaliere; Leonardo Solaini; Giorgio Ercolani; Antonio V Sterpetti; Andrea Mingoli; Enrico Fiori Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 2.430