Naotsugu Haraguchi1,2, Masataka Ikeda3, Masakazu Miyake3, Takuya Yamada4, Yuko Sakakibara4, Eiji Mita4, Yuichiro Doki5, Masaki Mori5, Mitsugu Sekimoto3. 1. Department of Surgery, National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital, Chuouku Hoenzaka 2-1-14, Osaka, 540-0006, Japan. nharaguchi@gesurg.med.osaka-u.ac.jp. 2. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita Yamadaoka 2-2-E2, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. nharaguchi@gesurg.med.osaka-u.ac.jp. 3. Department of Surgery, National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital, Chuouku Hoenzaka 2-1-14, Osaka, 540-0006, Japan. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital, Chuouku Hoenzaka 2-1-14, Osaka, 540-0006, Japan. 5. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita Yamadaoka 2-2-E2, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To clarify the advantages and disadvantages of stenting as a bridge to surgery (BTS) by comparing the clinical features and outcomes of patients who underwent BTS with those of patients who underwent emergency surgery (ES). METHODS: We assessed technical success, clinical success, surgical procedures, stoma formation, complications, clinicopathological features, and Onodera's prognostic nutritional index (OPNI) in patients who underwent BTS and those who underwent ES. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients underwent stenting, which was successful in 22 (BTS group). The remaining four patients with unsuccessful stenting underwent emergency surgery. A total of 22 patients underwent emergency surgery (ES group). The rates of technical and clinical success were 85.0 and 81.0 %, respectively. The proportion of patients able to be treated by laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.0001) and avoid colostomy (P = 0.0042) was significantly higher in the BTS group. Although the incidence of anastomotic leakage in the two groups was not significantly different, it was significantly reduced by colonoscopic evaluation of obstructive colitis (P = 0.0251). The mean number of harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.0056) and the proportion of D3 lymphadenectomy (P = 0.0241) were significantly greater in the BTS group. Perineural invasion (PNI) was noted in 59.1 and 18.2 % of the BTS group and ES group patients, respectively (P = 0.0053). OPNI and serum albumin decreased significantly after stenting (P = 0.0084). CONCLUSIONS: The advantages of stenting as a BTS were that it avoided colostomy and allowed for laparoscopic surgery and lymphadenectomy, whereas its disadvantage lay in the decreased PNI and OPNI levels. A larger study including an analysis of prognosis is warranted.
PURPOSE: To clarify the advantages and disadvantages of stenting as a bridge to surgery (BTS) by comparing the clinical features and outcomes of patients who underwent BTS with those of patients who underwent emergency surgery (ES). METHODS: We assessed technical success, clinical success, surgical procedures, stoma formation, complications, clinicopathological features, and Onodera's prognostic nutritional index (OPNI) in patients who underwent BTS and those who underwent ES. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients underwent stenting, which was successful in 22 (BTS group). The remaining four patients with unsuccessful stenting underwent emergency surgery. A total of 22 patients underwent emergency surgery (ES group). The rates of technical and clinical success were 85.0 and 81.0 %, respectively. The proportion of patients able to be treated by laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.0001) and avoid colostomy (P = 0.0042) was significantly higher in the BTS group. Although the incidence of anastomotic leakage in the two groups was not significantly different, it was significantly reduced by colonoscopic evaluation of obstructive colitis (P = 0.0251). The mean number of harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.0056) and the proportion of D3 lymphadenectomy (P = 0.0241) were significantly greater in the BTS group. Perineural invasion (PNI) was noted in 59.1 and 18.2 % of the BTS group and ES group patients, respectively (P = 0.0053). OPNI and serum albumin decreased significantly after stenting (P = 0.0084). CONCLUSIONS: The advantages of stenting as a BTS were that it avoided colostomy and allowed for laparoscopic surgery and lymphadenectomy, whereas its disadvantage lay in the decreased PNI and OPNI levels. A larger study including an analysis of prognosis is warranted.
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: Hak-Mien Quah; Joanne F Chou; Mithat Gonen; Jinru Shia; Deborah Schrag; Ron G Landmann; José G Guillem; Philip B Paty; Larissa K Temple; W Douglas Wong; Martin R Weiser Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2008-03-06 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: P Baqué; P Chevallier; F Karimdjee Solihi; M A Rahili; A Iannelli; E I Benizri; J-L Bernard; J-M Bereder; F Oddo; B Padovani; J Gugenheim; D Benchimol; A Bourgeon Journal: Ann Chir Date: 2004 Jul-Aug
Authors: Joyce V Veld; Kim J Beek; Esther C J Consten; Frank Ter Borg; Henderik L van Westreenen; Wilhelmus A Bemelman; Jeanin E van Hooft; Pieter J Tanis Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 3.788