Femke Julie Amelung1, Werner Adriaan Draaisma2, Esther Catharina Josephina Consten1, Peter Derk Siersema3, Frank Ter Borg4. 1. Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Maatweg 3, 3813TZ, Amersfoort, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Maatweg 3, 3813TZ, Amersfoort, the Netherlands. wa.draaisma@meandermc.nl. 3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Deventer Hospital, Nico Bolkesteinlaan 75, 7416 SE, Deventer, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, all patients with a malignant obstruction of the proximal colon (MOPC) are treated with emergency resection. However, recent data suggest that Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement could lower mortality and morbidity rates. This study therefore aimed to compare SEMS placement with emergency resection as treatment options for MOPC. METHODS: All consecutive patients that underwent SEMS placement for MOPC in the period 2004-2015 at our institution were identified. SEMS placement was the standard of care for colonic obstructions at our institution in that period. All included SEMS patients were matched (1:4) on age (±5 years), gender, ASA-score, tumor location, surgical approach and pTNM-stage with patients treated by emergency resection. Controls were selected from a national database that prospectively registers all patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer in the Netherlands. RESULTS: In total, 41 patients received SEMS placement for MOPC. In 19 patients SEMS served as a definite palliative measure and in 22 as bridge to surgery. Technical and clinical success rates of SEMS placement were 92.7% and 90.2%, respectively. No significant differences between the SEMS and emergency resection group were found regarding morbidity and mortality rates, the number of radical resections and the number of primary anastomoses. Patients treated with SEMS were, however, less likely to have a temporary stoma constructed (p = 0.04). No SEMS-related complications occurred in patients in whom SEMS was placed as bridge to surgery, whereas one stent-related perforation, three stent migrations, and five stent re-obstructions were observed in the palliative group. Three re-obstructions could be treated with re-stenting, but all other SEMS-related complications required surgical intervention. In the palliative group, SEMS complications necessitating surgery occurred in 31.6% of the patients (6/19). CONCLUSION: SEMS placement for MOPC appears to be a relatively feasible and safe alternative for emergency resection in both the curative and palliative setting.
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, all patients with a malignant obstruction of the proximal colon (MOPC) are treated with emergency resection. However, recent data suggest that Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement could lower mortality and morbidity rates. This study therefore aimed to compare SEMS placement with emergency resection as treatment options for MOPC. METHODS: All consecutive patients that underwent SEMS placement for MOPC in the period 2004-2015 at our institution were identified. SEMS placement was the standard of care for colonic obstructions at our institution in that period. All included SEMS patients were matched (1:4) on age (±5 years), gender, ASA-score, tumor location, surgical approach and pTNM-stage with patients treated by emergency resection. Controls were selected from a national database that prospectively registers all patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer in the Netherlands. RESULTS: In total, 41 patients received SEMS placement for MOPC. In 19 patients SEMS served as a definite palliative measure and in 22 as bridge to surgery. Technical and clinical success rates of SEMS placement were 92.7% and 90.2%, respectively. No significant differences between the SEMS and emergency resection group were found regarding morbidity and mortality rates, the number of radical resections and the number of primary anastomoses. Patients treated with SEMS were, however, less likely to have a temporary stoma constructed (p = 0.04). No SEMS-related complications occurred in patients in whom SEMS was placed as bridge to surgery, whereas one stent-related perforation, three stent migrations, and five stent re-obstructions were observed in the palliative group. Three re-obstructions could be treated with re-stenting, but all other SEMS-related complications required surgical intervention. In the palliative group, SEMS complications necessitating surgery occurred in 31.6% of the patients (6/19). CONCLUSION: SEMS placement for MOPC appears to be a relatively feasible and safe alternative for emergency resection in both the curative and palliative setting.
Authors: Pieter J Tanis; Nuno R Paulino Pereira; Jeanin E van Hooft; Esther C J Consten; Willem A Bemelman Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2015-07-04 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: A O Tal; M Friedrich-Rust; W O Bechstein; G Woeste; J Trojan; S Zeuzem; C Sarrazin; J G Albert Journal: Z Gastroenterol Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 2.000
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: Lane Smothers; Linda Hynan; Jason Fleming; Richard Turnage; Clifford Simmang; Thomas Anthony Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Jeske R E Boeding; Winesh Ramphal; Arjen M Rijken; Rogier M P H Crolla; Cornelis Verhoef; Paul D Gobardhan; Jennifer M J Schreinemakers Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 5.344