Chi Chung Foo1, Samuel Ho Ting Poon2, Rosemaire Hon Yiu Chiu2, Wai Yiu Lam2, Lam Chi Cheung2, Wai Lun Law3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, 102 Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China. ccfoo@hku.hk. 2. Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, 102 Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite studies showing superior results in terms of reduced stoma rate and higher primary anastomosis rate, the safety of bridge to surgery stenting (BTS stent) for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction, especially in oncological terms, remains a concern. AIM: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether BTS stent is a safe alternative to emergency surgery (EmS). METHODS: Randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing BTS stent and EmS for left-sided colonic obstruction caused by primary cancer of the colon, up to Sep 2018, were retrieved from the Pubmed, Embase database, clinical trials registry of U. S. National Library of Medicine and BMJ and Google Search. RESULTS: There were seven eligible RCTs, involving a total of 448 patients. Compared to EmS, BTS stent had a significantly lower risk of overall complications (RR = 0.605; 95% CI 0.382-0.958; p = 0.032). However, the overall recurrence rate was higher in the BTS stent group (37.0% vs. 25.9%; RR = 1.425; 95% CI 1.002-2.028; p = 0.049). BTS stent significantly increased the risk of systemic recurrence (RR = 1.627; 95% CI 1.009-2.621; p = 0.046). This did not translate into a significant difference in terms of 3-year disease-free survival or 3-year overall survival. CONCLUSION: BTS stent is associated with a lower rate of overall morbidities than EmS. However, BTS stent was associated with a greater chance of recurrence, especially systemic recurrence. Clinicians ought to be aware of the pros and cons of different interventions and tailor treatments for patients suffering from left-sided obstructing cancer of the colon.
BACKGROUND: Despite studies showing superior results in terms of reduced stoma rate and higher primary anastomosis rate, the safety of bridge to surgery stenting (BTS stent) for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction, especially in oncological terms, remains a concern. AIM: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether BTS stent is a safe alternative to emergency surgery (EmS). METHODS: Randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing BTS stent and EmS for left-sided colonic obstruction caused by primary cancer of the colon, up to Sep 2018, were retrieved from the Pubmed, Embase database, clinical trials registry of U. S. National Library of Medicine and BMJ and Google Search. RESULTS: There were seven eligible RCTs, involving a total of 448 patients. Compared to EmS, BTS stent had a significantly lower risk of overall complications (RR = 0.605; 95% CI 0.382-0.958; p = 0.032). However, the overall recurrence rate was higher in the BTS stent group (37.0% vs. 25.9%; RR = 1.425; 95% CI 1.002-2.028; p = 0.049). BTS stent significantly increased the risk of systemic recurrence (RR = 1.627; 95% CI 1.009-2.621; p = 0.046). This did not translate into a significant difference in terms of 3-year disease-free survival or 3-year overall survival. CONCLUSION:BTS stent is associated with a lower rate of overall morbidities than EmS. However, BTS stent was associated with a greater chance of recurrence, especially systemic recurrence. Clinicians ought to be aware of the pros and cons of different interventions and tailor treatments for patients suffering from left-sided obstructing cancer of the colon.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bridge to surgery; Colon obstruction; Colorectal cancer; SEMS; Stent
Authors: Shaji Sebastian; Sean Johnston; Tony Geoghegan; William Torreggiani; Martin Buckley Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: D A M Sloothaak; M W van den Berg; M G W Dijkgraaf; P Fockens; P J Tanis; J E van Hooft; W A Bemelman Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Joyce V Veld; Femke J Amelung; Wernard A A Borstlap; Emo E van Halsema; Esther C J Consten; Peter D Siersema; Frank Ter Borg; Edwin S van der Zaag; Johannes H W de Wilt; Paul Fockens; Wilhelmus A Bemelman; Jeanin E van Hooft; Pieter J Tanis Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Mauro Podda; Patricia Sylla; Gianluca Baiocchi; Michel Adamina; Vanni Agnoletti; Ferdinando Agresta; Luca Ansaloni; Alberto Arezzo; Nicola Avenia; Walter Biffl; Antonio Biondi; Simona Bui; Fabio C Campanile; Paolo Carcoforo; Claudia Commisso; Antonio Crucitti; Nicola De'Angelis; Gian Luigi De'Angelis; Massimo De Filippo; Belinda De Simone; Salomone Di Saverio; Giorgio Ercolani; Gustavo P Fraga; Francesco Gabrielli; Federica Gaiani; Mario Guerrieri; Angelo Guttadauro; Yoram Kluger; Ari K Leppaniemi; Andrea Loffredo; Tiziana Meschi; Ernest E Moore; Monica Ortenzi; Francesco Pata; Dario Parini; Adolfo Pisanu; Gilberto Poggioli; Andrea Polistena; Alessandro Puzziello; Fabio Rondelli; Massimo Sartelli; Neil Smart; Michael E Sugrue; Patricia Tejedor; Marco Vacante; Federico Coccolini; Justin Davies; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Andrew S Miller; Kathryn Boyce; Benjamin Box; Matthew D Clarke; Sarah E Duff; Niamh M Foley; Richard J Guy; Lisa H Massey; George Ramsay; Dominic A J Slade; James A Stephenson; Phil J Tozer; Danette Wright Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 3.917
Authors: Fan Xue; Feng Lin; Jun Zhou; Ning Feng; You-Gang Cui; Xu Zhang; Yu-Peng Yi; Wen-Zhi Liu Journal: Emerg Med Int Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 1.112