BACKGROUND: The aim of colonic stenting with self-expandable metallic stents in neoplastic colon obstruction is to avoid emergency surgery and thus potentially reduce morbidity, mortality, and need for a stoma. Concern has been raised, however, about the effect of colonic stenting on short-term complications and long-term survival. We compared morbidity rates after colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery (SBTS) versus emergency surgery (ES) in the management of left-sided malignant large-bowel obstruction. METHODS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial was designed with the endorsement of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. The study population was consecutive patients with acute, symptomatic malignant left-sided large-bowel obstruction localised between the splenic flexure and 15 cm from the anal margin. The primary outcome was overall morbidity within 60 days after surgery. RESULTS:Between March 2008 and November 2015, 144 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either SBTS or ES; 29/144 (13.9%) were excluded post-randomisation mainly because of wrong diagnosis at computed tomography examination. The remaining 115 patients (SBTS n = 56, ES n = 59) were deemed eligible for analysis. The complications rate within 60 days was 51.8% in the SBTS group and 57.6% in the ES group (p = 0.529). Although long-term follow-up is still ongoing, no statistically significant difference in 3-year overall survival (p = 0.998) and progression-free survival rates between the groups has been observed (p = 0.893). Eleven patients in the SBTS group and 23 in the ES group received a stoma (p = 0.031), with a reversal rate of 30% so far. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the two treatment strategies are equivalent. No difference in oncologic outcome was found at a median follow-up of 36 months. The significantly lower stoma rate noted in the SBTS group argues in favour of the SBTS procedure when performed in expert hands.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of colonic stenting with self-expandable metallic stents in neoplastic colon obstruction is to avoid emergency surgery and thus potentially reduce morbidity, mortality, and need for a stoma. Concern has been raised, however, about the effect of colonic stenting on short-term complications and long-term survival. We compared morbidity rates after colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery (SBTS) versus emergency surgery (ES) in the management of left-sided malignant large-bowel obstruction. METHODS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial was designed with the endorsement of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. The study population was consecutive patients with acute, symptomatic malignant left-sided large-bowel obstruction localised between the splenic flexure and 15 cm from the anal margin. The primary outcome was overall morbidity within 60 days after surgery. RESULTS: Between March 2008 and November 2015, 144 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either SBTS or ES; 29/144 (13.9%) were excluded post-randomisation mainly because of wrong diagnosis at computed tomography examination. The remaining 115 patients (SBTS n = 56, ES n = 59) were deemed eligible for analysis. The complications rate within 60 days was 51.8% in the SBTS group and 57.6% in the ES group (p = 0.529). Although long-term follow-up is still ongoing, no statistically significant difference in 3-year overall survival (p = 0.998) and progression-free survival rates between the groups has been observed (p = 0.893). Eleven patients in the SBTS group and 23 in the ES group received a stoma (p = 0.031), with a reversal rate of 30% so far. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the two treatment strategies are equivalent. No difference in oncologic outcome was found at a median follow-up of 36 months. The significantly lower stoma rate noted in the SBTS group argues in favour of the SBTS procedure when performed in expert hands.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bridge to surgery; Emergency colorectal surgery; Endoscopic stenting; Large bowel obstruction; Randomized controlled trial
Authors: Ahmad Al Samaraee; Iain J McCallum; Louise Kenny; Siddek Isreb; Louise Macdougall; Mumtaz Hayat; Seamus Kelly Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2011-09-13 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: Luca Ansaloni; Roland E Andersson; Franco Bazzoli; Fausto Catena; Vincenzo Cennamo; Salomone Di Saverio; Lorenzo Fuccio; Hans Jeekel; Ari Leppäniemi; Ernest Moore; Antonio D Pinna; Michele Pisano; Alessandro Repici; Paul H Sugarbaker; Jean-Jaques Tuech Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2010-12-28 Impact factor: 5.469
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: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Karen Lok Man Tung; Hester Yui Shan Cheung; Lawrence Wing Chiu Ng; Cliff Chi Chiu Chung; Michael Ka Wah Li Journal: Asian J Endosc Surg Date: 2013-05
Authors: Philip R Harvey; James Rees; Simon Baldwin; Hina Waheed; Jamie-Rae Tanner; Felicity Evison; Prashant Patel; Nigel J Trudgill Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Chi Chung Foo; Samuel Ho Ting Poon; Rosemaire Hon Yiu Chiu; Wai Yiu Lam; Lam Chi Cheung; Wai Lun Law Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-10-19 Impact factor: 4.584