Endoscopic Stenting Does Not Worsen Long Term Outcomes Amongst Patients Presenting with Obstruction from Colorectal Cancers
- 273 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsEmergency Surgery Technical Success Peritoneal Recurrence Undergo Emergency Surgery Endoscopic Stenting
All authors have obtained no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work, and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
The authors disclose no conflicts.
- 7.van Halsema EE, van Hooft JE, Small AJ, Baron TH, García-Cano J, Cheon JH, et al. Perforation in colorectal stenting: a meta-analysis and a search for risk factors. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79(6):970.e7–82.e7.Google Scholar
- 11.Kavanagh DO, Nolan B, Judge C, Hyland, J, Mulcahy, HE, O’Connell, PR, et al. A comparative study of short and medium term outcomes comparing emergent surgery and stenting as a bridge to surgery in patients with acute malignant colonic obstruction. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(4):433–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1718–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.van Hooft JE, van Halsema EE, Vanbiervliet G, Beets-Tan RG, DeWitt JM, Donnellan F, et al. Self-expandable metal stents for obstructing colonic and extracolonic cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80(5):747–61.e1-75.Google Scholar
- 26.Koh FH, Wong J, Tan JK, Tan KK, Cheong WK, Lieske B. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is safe and benefits octogenarian patients with malignant disease: a matched case-control study comparing laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015;30(7):963–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar