Patients who failed endoscopic stenting for left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction suffered the worst outcomes

Comparison of different types of covered self-expandable metal stents for malignant colorectal obstruction

BACKGROUND

Stent migration is one of the main drawbacks of covered self-expandable metal stent (SEMSs), occurring in up to 40% of malignant colorectal obstruction management cases. Various types of covered SEMSs have been developed to reduce this risk. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and complication rates of the flare-type covered SEMS (Flare) with those of the double-layered covered SEMS (ComVi).

METHODS

We performed a prospective, randomized study in four tertiary referral centers between July 2016 and April 2018. Patients with malignant colorectal obstruction were eligible for the study. The primary outcome was migration rate as observed within the first month. Rates of technical success, clinical success, and complications within the first month were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were included (mean age, 70.5 ± 12.5 years; male, 31 [51.7%]). Flare and ComVi stents were applied in 30 patients each. The Flare and ComVi groups showed comparable technical success rates (90% [27/30] vs. 96.7% [29/30], p = 0.605) and clinical success rates (85.2% [23/27] vs. 75.9% [22/29], p = 0.589). Migration occurred in three (11.1%) and four (13.8%) cases in the Flare and ComVi groups, respectively, without significant difference (p = 0.99), and the risk of other complications, including perforation and re-obstruction, did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that both flare-shape and double-layered covered SEMSs are equally effective options for the management of malignant colorectal obstruction with low migration rates when compared with previously reported migration risk of covered SEMS.

Endoscopic stenting in colorectal cancer

Acute malignant large bowel obstruction presents as one of the few emergencies of colorectal cancer (CRC). Management of this condition can either be by (I) upfront surgery or (II) the use of self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) as a bridge to elective surgery. For patients with metastasis, the use of SEMS is reported to enable earlier commencement of chemotherapy. Although the use of SEMS in patients with acute malignant large bowel obstruction looks promising, it is plagued by its own set of complications and divided opinion over its long-term outcomes. Conflicting data are present, and definitive indication requires further evaluation and debate. This article will describe the typical presentation of patients with acute malignant large bowel obstruction. An introduction to the SEMS insertion procedural steps will be undertaken. Following which the article aims to review the safety profile of SEMS and the short- and long-term outcomes of SEMS in both the curative and palliative setting.

Fluoroscopic Rescue of Failed Endoscopic Stent Placement for Obstructing Colorectal Malignancy

OBJECTIVE. This study evaluated the technical feasibility and clinical effectiveness of fluoroscopic stent placement in malignant colorectal obstructions after failed endoscopic stent placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Between January 2004 and December 2017, 41 patients with malignant colorectal obstructions were referred for fluoroscopic stent placement after failed endoscopy. The procedures were performed for palliation (n = 35) or as a bridge to surgery (n = 6). The technical and clinical success, complications, stent patency duration, and patient survival were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS. Fluoroscopic stent placement was technically successful in 38 patients (92.7%). The causes of technical failure were complete obstruction (n = 1), redundant sigmoid colon (n = 1), and colon perforation (n = 1). Clinical success was achieved in 37 patients with technical success (97.4%). Major complications occurred in three patients (7.9%) and included colon perforation (n = 2) and anal pain (n = 1). The six patients with stenting as a bridge to surgery underwent elective colectomy uneventfully (100%). In 32 patients with technically successful palliative stenting, the median primary stent patency duration and patient survival were 353 days (95% CI, 162-353 days) and 335 days (95% CI, 116-335 days), respectively. CONCLUSION. Fluoroscopic colorectal stent placement is technically feasible and clinically effective in most patients with failed endoscopic procedures.

Endoscopic stenting should be advocated in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer presenting with acute obstruction

BACKGROUND

It remains contentious whether endoscopic stenting or upfront surgery is more optimal in patients with metastatic colorectal cancers presenting with large bowel obstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who underwent either endoscopic stenting or emergency surgery for acute large bowel obstruction was performed.

RESULTS

Between January 2007 and June 2014, 66 patients, median age, 64 (range, 25-96) years, presented with acute large bowel obstruction from metastatic colorectal cancer. Forty (60.6%) patients underwent endoscopic stenting whilst the rest received immediate upfront surgical intervention. Of the 40 patients, 29 (72.5%) were successfully stented. The remaining 11 (27.5%) patients who failed endoscopic stenting required immediate emergency surgery to relieve the obstruction. Patients who failed endoscopic stenting had worse complications than those patients who had their stents successfully inserted [odds ratio (OR), 23.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.29-250.00, P=0.004]. Patients who underwent emergency surgery had a longer median length of stay than patients who had successful endoscopic stenting (P=0.003). The patients that underwent successful stenting had earlier commencement of chemotherapy compared to those who had upfront surgery (P=0.02). There was no difference in stoma creation rates between patients who had emergency surgery versus those who were successfully stented.

CONCLUSIONS

Stenting is a safe option in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer presenting with acute large bowel obstruction. Earlier commencement of chemotherapy occurs in patients who were successfully stented. Patients who failed stenting have equivalent outcomes to those who undergone upfront emergency surgery.

Endoscopic Stenting Does Not Worsen Long Term Outcomes Amongst Patients Presenting with Obstruction from Colorectal Cancers

BACKGROUND

Stenting has been increasingly adopted in colorectal cancer patients presenting with acute large bowel obstruction. However, long-term outcomes of stenting are lacking in the literature. Our study attempts to compare the long-term outcomes of colonic stenting and emergency surgery amongst left-sided colorectal cancer patients presenting with acute large bowel obstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who presented with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer who underwent either endoscopic stenting or emergency surgery for acute large bowel obstruction was performed from January 2007 to April 2016. Patients were analysed in an intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-seven (46.1%) patients underwent emergency surgery, whereas 55 (53.9%) underwent colonic stenting with a technical success rate of 71.0%. Patients who underwent emergency surgery were more likely to develop severe complications compared with patients who underwent successful colonic stenting, but the difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR] 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-11.3, p = 0.139). Patients were followed up for a median of 48.3 months (3.1-111) in the stenting group and 51.2 months (1.2-117.1) in the emergency surgery group. Recurrence rates between colonic stenting and emergency surgery were similar (25.6% vs. 21.3%, p = 0.500), with more anastomotic and peritoneal recurrences were noted in the emergency surgery group. 5 year disease free survival (77% vs. 73%, p = 0.708) and overall survival (86% vs. 62%, p = 0.064) also were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent endoscopic stenting for large bowel obstruction have comparable long-term outcomes as those who undergo emergency surgery. The role of endoscopic stenting in obstructed colorectal cancers merits further evaluation.

Laparoscopic approach in gastrointestinal emergencies

This review focuses on the laparoscopic approach to gastrointestinal emergencies and its more recent indications. Laparoscopic surgery has a specific place in elective procedures, but that does not apply in emergency situations. In specific emergencies, there is a huge range of indications and different techniques to apply, and not all of them are equally settle. We consider that the most controversial points in minimally invasive procedures are indications in emergency situations due to technical difficulties. Some pathologies, such as oesophageal emergencies, obstruction due to colon cancer, abdominal hernias or incarcerated postsurgical hernias, are nearly always resolved by conventional surgery, that is, an open approach due to limited intraabdominal cavity space or due to the vulnerability of the bowel. These technical problems have been solved in many diseases, such as for perforated peptic ulcer or acute appendectomy for which a laparoscopic approach has become a well-known and globally supported procedure. On the other hand, endoscopic procedures have acquired further indications, relegating surgical solutions to a second place; this happens in cholangitis or pancreatic abscess drainage. This endoluminal approach avoids the need for laparoscopic development in these diseases. Nevertheless, new instruments and new technologies could extend the laparoscopic approach to a broader array of potentials procedures. There remains, however, a long way to go.