Decision-making in rectal surgery

Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy vs Up-Front Surgery for Resectable Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Importance

Guidelines for resectable locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) advocate for neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NRT) followed by surgery as the standard approach. However, recent trials have reported no oncological benefits of NRT-based therapy for middle or lower rectal cancer, raising the question of whether NRT followed by surgery remains the optimal treatment approach for resectable LARC overall.

Objective

To compare the outcomes of NRT followed by surgery vs up-front surgery for resectable LARC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study, using a target trial emulation framework with nationwide registries in Taiwan, included patients undergoing curative resection for resectable LARC (cT1-2N1-2, cT3Nany) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017, with follow-up until December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2024, to February 15, 2025.

Exposure

NRT.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and local recurrence (LR). The secondary outcome was intraoperative diverting stoma outcomes.

Results

A total of 4099 patients were analyzed, including 1436 patients undergoing NRT followed by surgery (median [IQR] age, 62.0 [53.0-71.0] years; 1036 [72.1%] male) and 2663 patients undergoing up-front surgery (median [IQR] age, 65.0 [56.0-74.0] years; 1626 [61.1%] male). NRT followed by surgery, compared with up-front surgery, was associated with higher 3-year OS rates (88.5% vs 85.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.92) but higher permanent diverting stoma rates (20.6% vs 11.1%; relative risk [RR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.62-2.25); LR rates were not significantly different (5.7% vs 6.6%; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.55-1.11). Subgroup analysis revealed that compared with up-front surgery, NRT followed by surgery was associated with improved outcomes in middle or lower rectal cancer but not upper rectal cancer (OS: HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.82-2.90; LR: HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.23-5.00). NRT followed by surgery was associated with significantly increased risks of permanent diverting stomas across different tumor heights, particularly in upper rectal cancer (RR, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.44-8.69).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of nationwide registries in Taiwan, NRT followed by surgery was associated with improved oncological outcomes for overall resectable LARC, with excessive diverting stoma nonreversal as the trade-off. However, the benefits of NRT were not observed for upper rectal cancer. These findings raise concerns about potential harm from NRT and advise caution when performing NRT for upper rectal cancer.

Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum (PICARR): a decision-making exploring international survey

In our previous survey of experts, surgeon's decision-making process (DMP) about protective ileostomy (PI) creation after anterior resection was investigated. Based on our previous data, a multiple choice questionnaire has been developed. The aim is to perform a quantitative analysis of the results obtained from an international survey and to describe the clinical practice worldwide. Ten questions were related to participants' demographics and, 20 questions (of which 17 Likert scale questions) investigated the DMP regarding PI creation. To evaluate the tendency of the answers in the Likert-type questions, the mean of the answers obtained was compared with the mean point of the Likert scale. The survey was completed by 1019 physicians. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge ≤ 10 cm were each considered alone sufficient to justify creation of a PI, with statistically significant differences in comparison to the mean point of the scales in (p =  < 0.0001 in both cases). Total Mesorectal Excision alone was not considered a factor sufficient to create a PI (p = 0.416). Most of the participants agree to define their approach to create a PI "tailored" to patients' risk factors (p =  < 0.0001) and "influenced by my experience" in case of patients with low/moderate risk of anastomotic leakage (p =  < 0.0001). This study provides useful insights on the worldwide clinical practice regarding creation of PI following anterior resection. Given the lack of standardization and evidence-based guidelines, this analysis may be helpful to assist surgeons' practice.

Surgeon perceptions of personality as an influencing factor on anastomotic decision-making: A qualitative analysis

AIM

Surgeon personality is a factor influencing rectal anastomotic decision-making. However, it is unclear how or why this may be the case, or what aspects of personality are involved. The aim of this study was to investigate the views of colorectal surgeons on how their individual personality may influence variation in anastomotic decision-making.

METHOD

Purposive sampling was used to invite certified UK-based colorectal surgeons to participate, with individual interviews used for data collection. Participants were recruited until ongoing data review indicated no new codes were generated (i.e. data sufficiency). Data were analysed thematically following Braun and Clarke's six-step framework.

RESULTS

Seventeen colorectal surgeons (eight female, nine male) participated. Two key themes relating to personality and decision-making were identified: (1) surgeon development and training and (2) patient-surgeon interactions, each with relevant subthemes. Surgeons described how their personality may influence patients' postoperative outcomes (e.g. decision-making, team working and communication) and potential mechanisms for how their personality may influence operative risk-taking. Following anastomotic leakage, surgeons described a disproportionate sense of guilt and responsibility. There appears to be a significant transition in responsibility from trainee to newly appointed consultant, which may be part of the 'hidden curriculum' of surgical training.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal surgeons have described their perceptions of how personality traits may impact variation in decision-making and patient outcomes for the first time. Early career surgeons felt ill-prepared for the level of guilt experienced when managing complications. Surgeons appear open to personality assessment if this was through an educational lens, with the aim of improving decision-making following complications and overall performance.

Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum: Shared decision-making or still subjective?

AIM

The choice of whether to perform protective ileostomy (PI) after anterior resection (AR) is mainly guided by risk factors (RFs) responsible for the development of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, clear guidelines about PI creation are still lacking in the literature and this is often decided according to the surgeon's preferences, experiences or feelings. This qualitative study aims to investigate, by an open-ended question survey, the individual surgeon's decision-making process regarding PI creation after elective AR.

METHOD

Fifty four colorectal surgeons took part in an electronic survey to answer the questions and describe what usually led their decision to perform PI. A content analysis was used to code the answers. To classify answers, five dichotomous categories (In favour/Against PI, Listed/Unlisted RFs, Typical/Atypical, Emotions/Non-emotions, Personal experience/No personal experience) have been developed.

RESULTS

Overall, 76% of surgeons were in favour of PI creation and 88% considered listed RFs in the question of whether to perform PI. Atypical answers were reported in 10% of cases. Emotions and personal experience influenced surgeons' decision-making process in 22% and 49% of cases, respectively. The most frequently considered RFs were the distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge (96%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (88%), a positive intraoperative leak test (65%), blood loss (37%) and immunosuppression therapy (35%).

CONCLUSION

The indications to perform PI following rectal cancer surgery lack standardization and evidence-based guidelines are required to inform practice. Until then, expert opinion can be helpful to assist the decision-making process in patients who have undergone AR for adenocarcinoma.

Exploring variation in surgical practice: does surgeon personality influence anastomotic decision-making?

BACKGROUND

Decision-making under uncertainty may be influenced by an individual's personality. The primary aim was to explore associations between surgeon personality traits and colorectal anastomotic decision-making.

METHODS

Colorectal surgeons worldwide participated in a two-part online survey. Part 1 evaluated surgeon characteristics using the Big Five Inventory to measure personality (five domains: agreeableness; conscientiousness; extraversion; emotional stability; openness) in response to scenarios presented in Part 2 involving anastomotic decisions (i.e. rejoining the bowel with/without temporary stomas, or permanent diversion with end colostomy). Anastomotic decisions were compared using repeated-measure ANOVA. Mean scores of traits domains were compared with normative data using two-tailed t tests.

RESULTS

In total, 186 surgeons participated, with 127 surgeons completing both parts of the survey (68.3 per cent). One hundred and thirty-one surgeons were male (70.4 per cent) and 144 were based in Europe (77.4 per cent). Forty-one per cent (77 surgeons) had begun independent practice within the last 5 years. Surgeon personality differed from the general population, with statistically significantly higher levels of emotional stability (3.25 versus 2.97 respectively), lower levels of agreeableness (3.03 versus 3.74), extraversion (2.81 versus 3.38) and openness (3.19 versus 3.67), and similar levels of conscientiousness (3.42 versus 3.40 (all P <0.001)). Female surgeons had significantly lower levels of openness (P <0.001) than males (3.06 versus 3.25). Personality was associated with anastomotic decision-making in specific scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal surgeons have different personality traits from the general population. Certain traits seem to be associated with anastomotic decision-making but only in specific scenarios. Further exploration of the association of personality, risk-taking, and decision-making in surgery is necessary.

Risk taking propensity: Nurse, surgeon and patient preferences for diverting ileostomy

AIM

The decision-making process to defunction a pelvic colorectal anastomosis involves complex heuristics and is framed by surgeon personality factors. Risk taking propensity may be an important factor in these decisions and patient preferences have not been evaluated alongside surgeons and nurses.

METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional study involving a one-off interview and questionnaire assessing how risk taking propensity affects nurse, surgeon and patient preferences for a temporary defunctioning ileostomy (TDI) was performed. The risk taking index (RTI) was employed to evaluate risk taking propensity and the validated prospective measures of preference instruments to evaluate preferences for stoma avoidance in several scenarios by asking the individual to consider trading or gambling years of remaining life expectancy.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty participants met the inclusion criteria, which included 30 (20.0%) surgical nurses, 20 (13.3%) colorectal surgeons and 100 (66.7%) patients. Surgeons had a significantly higher RTI (mean ± SD: 26.8 ± 6.7) than patients (mean ± SD: 20.0 ± 9.8) and nurses (mean ± SD: 23.0 ± 6.6) p = 0.002. Surgeons would consider that it would be in a patient's best interest to have a TDI at an AL rate of 15% or greater, whereas nurses and patients would do so at 28% and 25%, respectively (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Surgeons were shown to have a higher risk taking propensity than patients and nurses but a significantly lower threshold of AL where they would consider a TDI is in the best interest of the patient.

A Systematic Review of the Abdominal Surgeon's Personality: Exploring Common Traits in Western Populations

The personality traits commonly seen in abdominal surgeons remains undefined, and its potential influence on decision-making and patient outcomes underexplored. This systematic review identified studies on abdominal surgeons who had undergone validated personality testing, with assessment of decision-making and post-operative patient outcomes. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (University of York, UK (CRD42019151375)). MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and Cochrane Library databases were searched using the keywords: surgeon; surgeon personality; outcomes. All study designs were accepted including adult visceral surgeons published in English. Five articles from 3056 abstracts met our inclusion criteria and one article was identified from hand searches with two reviewers screening studies. Bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Six studies included 386 surgeons. Studies assessing personality using the Five Factor Model (four studies, 329 surgeons) demonstrated higher levels of conscientiousness (self-discipline, thoughtfulness), extraversion (sociability, emotional expression) and openness (creative, conventional) in surgeons versus population norms. Surgeon characterisation of agreeableness and emotional stability was less clear, with studies reporting mixed results. Post-operative outcomes were reported by only one study. Further exploration of the influence of surgeon personality and its influence on decision-making is necessary to deliver patient-centred care and targeted non-technical skills training for surgeons.

The Benefits of Colorectal Surgery Surveys in Australia and New Zealand

PURPOSE

Pertaining to the Colorectal Surgery Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ) Executive and Research Support Committee, this study aimed to assess the usefulness and outcomes of surveys sent out by the society to its members.

METHODS

From 2009 to 2017, CSSANZ members received 38 surveys, most of which were distributed from within the society, and a few of which originated from other affiliated groups. Surveys were categorised by type, topics, times required for completion, delivery method, response rates, and advancement to publication.

RESULTS

Of 38 surveys, 20 (53%) were published and 18 remain unpublished. Four surveys were distributed annually on average, with 2.2 published annually on average, with a mean impact factor of 2.41 ± 1.55. Mean time to publication was 31 ± 17 months. Surveys contributed to 13 publications (34%). The most common survey topics were rectal cancer decisionmaking, in 6 publications (16%), preoperative assessment of colorectal patients, in 5 publications (13%), and anal physiology: continence and defaecation, in 4 publications (11%). Publication of surveys was not related to the number of surveys distributed per year, the number of questions per survey, or the time required by respondents to complete the surveys.

CONCLUSION

Most of the CSSANZ-distributed surveys resulted in publications, and one third of the surveys contributed to higher degrees obtained by investigators. These surveys aid research into areas that are otherwise difficult to assess, often indicating areas for future research.

Development of a Risk Score to Predict Anastomotic Leak After Left-Sided Colectomy: Which Patients Warrant Diversion?

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak is a feared complication after left-sided colectomy, but its risk can potentially be reduced with the use of a diverting ostomy. However, an ostomy has its own associated negative sequelae; therefore, it is critical to appropriately identify patients to divert. This is difficult in practice since many risk factors for anastomotic leak exist and outside factors bias this decision. We aimed to develop and validate a risk score to predict an individual's risk of anastomotic leak and aid in the decision.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Colectomy Targeted PUF was queried from 2012 to 2016 for patients undergoing elective left-sided resection for malignancy, benign neoplasm, or diverticular disease. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of anastomotic leak in non-diverted patients, and a risk score was developed and validated.

RESULTS

38,475 patients underwent resection with an overall anastomotic leak rate of 3%. Independent risk factors for anastomotic leak included younger age, male sex, tobacco use, and omission of combined bowel preparation. A risk score incorporating independent predictors demonstrated excellent calibration. There was strong visual correspondence between predicted and observed anastomotic leak rates. 3960 patients underwent resection with diversion, yet over half of these patients had a predicted leak rate of less than 4%.

CONCLUSION

A novel risk score can be used to stratify patients according to anastomotic leak risk after elective left-sided resection. Intraoperative calculation of scores for patients can help guide surgical decision-making in both diverting the highest risk patients and avoiding diversion in low-risk patients.

Surveys still teach vital non-technical lessons in General Surgery

In general surgery, observational studies are disregarded and often seen as non-noteworthy research. We intend to defend the use of surveys in general surgery and colorectal surgery. This review highlights the historical importance and contemporary utility of surveys internationally and in our region, thus reminding Australasian surgeons and clinicians in numerous disciplines of the usefulness of this research tool. Well-constructed surveys often successfully capture qualitative data otherwise impossible to collect through randomized controlled trial. The results of these surveys may advise national policies and medical registration agencies thus having a direct influence on individuals and their public health. Samples from contemporary survey-based research publications from international and Australasian authors are used to illustrate some of the vital non-technical lessons learned in recent times.

Progress in prevention and treatment of anastomotic leakage after surgery for rectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignant tumors in the world, and its morbidity and mortality both rank third among all malignant tumors in China. Rectal cancer accounts for 60%-70% of cases of CRC. With the in-depth study of the pathogenesis of CRC and the mechanism of tumor metastasis, and the improvement of surgical techniques and methods, anal sphincter surgery for middle and low rectal cancer is increasing gradually. Although the quality of life of the patients improves significantly after anal sphincter preservation for rectal cancer, anastomotic leakage is still one of the most common and serious complications. Studies show that the incidence of anastomotic leakage after surgery for low rectal cancer is 3%-21%, and the death rate is up to 3%. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of patients and analysis of risk factors before operation is of great significant for reducing the potential risk of anastomotic leakage and choosing surgical approach and appropriate preventive measures to prevent and reduce the occurrence of anastomotic leakage. In this paper, we summarize the recent research on anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery in order to help other clinicians reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage in clinical practice.

Defunctioning Stomas Result in Significantly More Short-Term Complications Following Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Studies suggest that defunctioning stomas reduce the rate of anastomotic leakage and urgent reoperations after anterior resection. Although the magnitude of benefit appears to be limited, there has been a trend in recent years towards routinely creating defunctioning stomas. However, little is known about post-operative complication rates in patients with and without a defunctioning stoma. We compared overall short-term post-operative complications after low anterior resection in patients managed with a defunctioning stoma to those managed without a stoma.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing elective low anterior resection of the rectum for rectal cancer. The primary outcome was overall 90-day post-operative complications.

RESULTS

Two hundred and three patients met the inclusion criteria for low anterior resection. One hundred and forty (69%) had a primary defunctioning stoma created. 45% received neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Patients with a defunctioning stoma had significantly more complications (57.1 vs 34.9%, p = 0.003), were more likely to suffer multiple complications (17.9 vs 3.2%, p < 0.004) and had longer hospital stays (13.0 vs 6.9 days, p = 0.005) than those without a stoma. 19% experienced a stoma-related complication, 56% still had a stoma 1 year after their surgery, and 26% were left with a stoma at their last follow-up. Anastomotic leak rates were similar but there was a significantly higher reoperation rate among patients managed without a defunctioning stoma.

CONCLUSION

Patients selected to have a defunctioning stoma had an absolute increase of 22% in overall post-operative complications compared to those managed without a stoma. These findings support the more selective use of defunctioning stomas.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Registered at www.researchregistry.com (UIN: researchregistry3412).

The colorectal surgeon's personality may influence the rectal anastomotic decision

AIM

Colorectal surgeons regularly make the decision to anastomose, defunction or form an end colostomy when performing rectal surgery. This study aimed to define personality traits of colorectal surgeons and explore any influence of such traits on the decision to perform a rectal anastomosis.

METHOD

Fifty attendees of The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland 2016 Conference participated. After written consent, all underwent personality testing: alexithymia (inability to understand emotions), type of thinking process (intuitive versus rational) and personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, emotional stability, conscientiousness). Questions were answered regarding anastomotic decisions in various clinical scenarios and results analysed to reveal any influence of the surgeon's personality on anastomotic decision.

RESULTS

Participants were: male (86%), consultants (84%) and based in England (68%). Alexithymia was low (4%) with 81% displaying intuitive thinking (reflex, fast). Participants scored higher in emotional stability (ability to remain calm) and conscientiousness (organized, methodical) compared with population norms. Personality traits influenced the next anastomotic decision if: surgeons had recently received criticism at a departmental audit meeting; were operating with an anaesthetist that was not their regular one; or there had been no anastomotic leaks in their patients for over 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal surgeons have speciality relevant personalities that potentially influence the important decision to anastomose and could explain the variation in surgical practice across the UK. Future work should explore these findings in other countries and any link of personality traits to patient-related outcomes.

Heuristics and bias in rectal surgery

PURPOSE

Deciding to defunction after anterior resection can be difficult, requiring cognitive tools or heuristics. From our previous work, increasing age and risk-taking propensity were identified as heuristic biases for surgeons in Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ), and inversely proportional to the likelihood of creating defunctioning stomas. We aimed to assess these factors for colorectal surgeons in the British Isles, and identify other potential biases.

METHODS

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) was invited to complete an online survey. Questions included demographics, risk-taking propensity, sensitivity to professional criticism, self-perception of anastomotic leak rate and propensity for creating defunctioning stomas. Chi-squared testing was used to assess differences between ACPGBI and CSSANZ respondents. Multiple regression analysis identified independent surgeon predictors of stoma formation.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty (19.2%) eligible members of the ACPGBI replied. Demographics between ACPGBI and CSSANZ groups were well-matched. Significantly more ACPGBI surgeons admitted to anastomotic leak in the last year (p < 0.001). ACPGBI surgeon age over 50 (p = 0.02), higher risk-taking propensity across several domains (p = 0.044), self-belief in a lower-than-average anastomotic leak rate (p = 0.02) and belief that the average risk of leak after anterior resection is 8% or lower (p = 0.007) were all independent predictors of less frequent stoma formation. Sensitivity to criticism from colleagues was not a predictor of stoma formation.

CONCLUSIONS

Unrecognised surgeon factors including age, everyday risk-taking, self-belief in surgical ability and lower probability bias of anastomotic leak appear to exert an effect on decision-making in rectal surgery.

Decision-making in rectal and colorectal cancer: systematic review and qualitative analysis of surgeons' preferences

Surgeons are experiencing difficulties implementing recommendations not only owing to incomplete, confusing or conflicting information but also to the increasing involvement of patients in decisions relating to their health. This study sought to establish which common factors including heuristic factors guide surgeons' decision-making in colon and rectal cancers. We conducted a systematic literature review of surgeons' decision-making factors related to colon and rectal cancer treatment. Eleven of 349 identified publications were eligible for data analyses. Using the IRaMuTeQ (Interface of R for the Multidimensional Analyses of Texts and Questionnaire), we carried out a qualitative analysis of the significant factors collected in the studies reviewed. Several validation procedures were applied to control the robustness of the findings. Five categories of factors (i.e. patient, surgeon, treatment, tumor and organizational cues) were found to influence surgeons' decision-making. Specifically, all decision criteria including biomedical (e.g. tumor information) and heuristic (e.g. surgeons' dispositional factors) criteria converged towards the factor 'age of patient' in the similarity analysis. In the light of the results, we propose an explanatory model showing the impact of heuristic criteria on medical issues (i.e. diagnosis, prognosis, treatment features, etc.) and thus on decision-making. Finally, the psychosocial complexity involved in decision-making is discussed and a medico-psycho-social grid for use in multidisciplinary meetings is proposed.

Understanding surgeon decision making in the use of radiotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Strong evidence supports the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in rectal cancer to improve local control. This randomised controlled trial aimed to determine the effect of clinical and non-clinical factors on decision making by colorectal surgeons in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

Two surveys comprising vignettes of alternating short (4) and long (12) cues identified previously as important in rectal cancer, were randomly assigned to all members of the CSSANZ. Respondents chose from three possible treatments: long course chemoradiotherapy (LC), short course radiotherapy (SC) or surgery alone to investigate the effects on surgeon decision and confidence in decisions. Choice data were analysed using multinomial logistic regression models.

RESULTS

106 of 165 (64%) surgeons responded. LC was the preferred treatment choice in 73% of vignettes. Surgeons were more likely to recommend LC over SC (OR 1.79) or surgery alone (OR 1.99) when presented with the shorter, four-cue scenarios. There was no significant difference in confidence in decisions made when surgeons were presented with long cue vignettes (P = 0.57). Significant effects on the choice between LC, SC and surgery alone were tumour stage (P < 0.001), nodal status (P < 0.001), tumour position in the rectum (P < 0.001) and the circumferential location of the tumour (P < 0.001). A T4 tumour was the factor most likely associated with a recommendation against surgery alone (OR 335.96) or SC (OR 61.73).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that clinical factors exert the greatest influence on surgeon decision making, which follows a "fast and frugal" heuristic decision making model.

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

BACKGROUND

Reported outcomes of patients followed failed endoscopic stenting for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction remained lacking.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare the outcomes between endoscopic stenting and emergency surgery in patients with acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction and to identify factors that predict failed stenting.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients with acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction in the National University Hospital, Singapore was performed.

RESULTS

From January 2007 to October 2013, 165 patients, with a median age of 68 years (range, 25-96), formed the study group. Sixty-nine (41.8 %) patients underwent immediate surgery. Endoscopic stenting was attempted in 96 (58.2 %) patients and was successful in 76 (79.2 %). The remaining 20 (20.8 %) failed the procedure and were operated immediately. Three of the patients who were successfully stented but did not improve clinically also required emergency surgery. Patients that failed stenting were 13.3 (95 % confidence interval (CI), 3.61-48.8; p < 0.001) times more likely to develop severe adverse events than those who were successfully stented. The group of patients who failed stenting was also 3.3 (95 % CI, 1.19-9.20; p = 0.026) times more likely to develop severe adverse events than those operated immediately. The only factor that predicted failure of stenting was a more acute angulation between the tumour and the distal lumen.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who failed endoscopic stenting fared worse than those who were successfully stented and also those who underwent emergency surgery upfront. Identification of factors that predict failures may be vital to minimise morbidity in these high-risk patients.