Short-Term Outcomes of Self-Expandable Metallic Stent versus Decompression Tube for Malignant Colorectal Obstruction: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Data

Short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes of self-expandable metallic stent compared with tube decompression for obstructive colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Patients with obstructive colorectal cancer managed by emergency surgery show high morbidity, mortality, and stoma formation rates. Decompression modalities, including the self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) and tube drainage (TD), have been used to improve surgical outcomes. However, there have been limited studies comparing the 2 modalities. We performed a meta-analysis on short- and long-term outcomes between SEMS and TD.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. Data were pooled, and the overall effect size was calculated using random effect models. Outcome measures were perioperative short-term and 3-year survival outcomes.

Results

We included 20 nonrandomized studies that examined 2,047 patients in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed SEMS had better short-term outcomes in clinical success rate, decompression-related complications, laparoscopic surgery rate, stoma formation rate, and postoperative complication rate with a relative risk (RR) of 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.54; I2 = 20%), 0.32 (95% CI, 0.20-0.50; I2 = 0%), 0.47 (95% CI, 0.34-0.66; I2 = 87%), 0.34 (95% CI, 0.24-0.49; I2 = 52%), and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.89, I2 = 28%), respectively. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in 3-year overall survival (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.77-1.27; I2 = 0%).

Conclusion

Although the long-term oncologic impact of SEMS is still unclear compared with TD, the results of this meta-analysis may suggest that SEMS insertion can be performed more successfully and safely and may have benefits for short-term perioperative outcomes compared with TD. Further studies are warranted to provide more definitive survival results.

The clinical outcomes of the radiologic method for self-expandable metal-stent placement in patients with colorectal obstruction: A prospective study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical outcomes of self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement for patients with colorectal obstruction.

METHODS

A total of 61 patients underwent SEMS placement using computerized tomography (CT) to confirm malignancy of intrinsic origin and evaluate the exact location, notch, and extent of the disruptive laceration.

RESULTS

The overall technical success rate and clinical success rate of SEMS placement using the radiological method were 59 (96.7%) and 57 (93.4%), respectively. The technical success rate and clinical success rate of SEMS placement in the palliative and bridge to elective surgery (BTS) groups were 35 (97.2%), 24 (96.0%), 33 (91.7%), and 24 (96.0%). The median cumulative primary stent patency duration and patients' survival of SEMS placement was 123 days (95% CI, 65-123 days), and 133 days (95% CI, 72-133 days). The median cumulative primary stent patency duration and patient survival did not differ significantly between the palliative group 119 days; (95% CI, 59-119 days), 128 days; (95% CI, 71-128 days), and the BTS group 120 days; (95% CI, 68-120 days; p = 0.362), 130 days; (95% CI, 78-130 days); p = 0.412).

CONCLUSIONS

The colorectal obstruction had convoluted with curved angulation and located mainly at the rectum, sigmoid, descending colon, and the radiologic method of SEMS placement has more efficacious with a high technical and clinical success rate. However, SEMS placement was highly technical, and clinical success with median stent patency and patient survival did not differ significantly between the palliative group and the BTS group.

MASCC multidisciplinary evidence-based recommendations for the management of malignant bowel obstruction in advanced cancer

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based recommendations on the management of malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) for patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) MBO study group conducted a systematic review of databases (inception to March 2021) to identify studies about patients with advanced cancer and MBO that reported on the following outcomes: symptom management, bowel obstruction resolution, prognosis, overall survival, and quality of life. The review was restricted to studies published in English, but no restrictions were placed on publication year, country, and study type. As per the MASCC Guidelines Policy, the findings were synthesized to determine the levels of evidence to support each MBO intervention and, ultimately, the graded recommendations and suggestions.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 17,656 published studies and 397 selected for the guidelines. The MASCC study group developed a total of 25 evidence-based suggestions and recommendations about the management of MBO-related nausea and vomiting, bowel movements, pain, inflammation, bowel decompression, and nutrition. Expert consensus-based guidance about advanced care planning and psychosocial support is also provided.

CONCLUSION

This MASCC Guideline provides comprehensive, evidence-based recommendations about MBO management for patients with advanced cancer.

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in emergency colorectal surgery

AIM

There is a requirement for an expansive and up to date review of the management of emergency colorectal conditions seen in adults. The primary objective is to provide detailed evidence-based guidelines for the target audience of general and colorectal surgeons who are responsible for an adult population and who practise in Great Britain and Ireland.

METHODS

Surgeons who are elected members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Emergency Surgery Subcommittee were invited to contribute various sections to the guidelines. They were directed to produce a pathology-based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence-based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after two votes were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

All aspects of care (excluding abdominal trauma) for emergency colorectal conditions have been included along with 122 recommendations for management.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence-based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of emergency colorectal conditions and should serve as practical text for clinicians managing colorectal conditions in the emergency setting.