Skip to main content
Erschienen in:

Open Access 11.10.2022 | Original Article

Preoperative stents for the treatment of obstructing left-sided colon cancer: a national analysis

verfasst von: Joseph Hadaya, Arjun Verma, Yas Sanaiha, Russyan Mark Mabeza, Formosa Chen, Peyman Benharash

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 3/2023

Abstract

Background

Given the risks associated with urgent colectomy for large bowel obstruction, preoperative colonic stenting has been utilized for decompression and optimization prior to surgery. This study examined national trends in the use of colonic stenting as a bridge to resection for malignant large bowel obstruction and evaluated outcomes relative to immediate colectomy.

Methods

Adults undergoing colonic stenting or colectomy for malignant, left/sigmoid large bowel obstruction were identified in the 2010–2016 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients were classified as immediate resection (IR) or delayed resection (DR) if undergoing colonic stenting prior to colectomy. Generalized linear models were used to evaluate the impact of resection strategy on ostomy creation, in-hospital mortality, and complications.

Results

Among 9,706 patients, 9.7% underwent colonic stenting, which increased from 7.7 to 16.4% from 2010 to 2016 (p < 0.001). Compared to IR, the DR group was younger (63.9 vs 65.9 years, p = 0.04), had fewer comorbidities (Elixhauser Index 3.5 vs 3.9, p = 0.001), and was more commonly managed at high-volume centers (89.4% vs 68.1%, p < 0.001). Laparoscopic resections were more frequent among the DR group (33.1% vs 13.0%, p < 0.001), while ostomy rates were significantly lower (21.5% vs 53.0%, p < 0.001). After risk adjustment, colonic stenting was associated with reduced odds of ostomy creation (0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.24–0.46), but similar odds of mortality and complications.

Conclusion

Colonic stenting is increasingly utilized for malignant, left-sided bowel obstructions, and associated with lower ostomy rates but comparable clinical outcomes. These findings suggest the relative safety of colonic stenting for malignant large bowel obstruction when clinically appropriate.

Graphical abstract

Hinweise

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00464-022-09650-8.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Colonic malignancies are the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality, with over 50,000 attributable deaths annually in the USA alone [1]. Despite advances in diagnostic modalities and improved screening for colon cancer, malignant large bowel obstruction occurs in roughly 15% of patients with colon cancer in the USA [2, 3]. The majority of malignant large bowel obstructions are secondary to large left-sided tumors and require urgent management [4, 5].
Emergent colectomy for acute obstruction is associated with significant risk of mortality, while complications are reported in 37–45% of patients [6, 7]. Ostomy rates as high as 65%, with 26–53% reported to be permanent, negatively impact quality of life and contribute to increased readmissions and resource utilization in this population [8, 9]. Several small randomized trials and retrospective series have reported on the utility of colonic stenting as part of the treatment algorithm for malignant left-sided colonic obstructions. A meta-analysis by De Ceglie et al. evaluated 822 patients with left-sided malignant large bowel obstruction (LBO) in 14 studies and found an overall reduction in ostomy use despite significant heterogeneity among the studies [10]. Despite conflicting results from several initial randomized trials, two of which required early termination for safety concerns, contemporary studies have demonstrated the efficacy of colonic stenting, with low rates of rates of iatrogenic complications [11, 12]. Similarly, a recent meta-analysis demonstrated similar long-term oncologic outcomes for patients undergoing emergency surgery or colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery, when performed with curative intent [13]. Therefore, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons currently recommend discussion and shared decision-making regarding the use of colonic stents in patients with obstructing left-sided colon cancer. [14]
Given the limited sample size of existing trials, the present work examined a nationally representative cohort of patients with malignant bowel obstruction to evaluate outcomes associated with colonic stenting as a bridge to resection. We compared clinical outcomes and ostomy rates for patients undergoing immediate colonic resection with those undergoing delayed colectomy after bridging. We hypothesized lower ostomy rates, but otherwise similar clinical outcomes with the use of preoperative stenting.

Materials and methods

Data source and study groups

The present study was a retrospective cohort study using the 2010–2016 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). Maintained by the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research as part of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), the NRD is the largest, all-payer, readmissions database and accrues data from 28 individual state inpatient databases [15]. Using robust survey weighting algorithms, the NRD provides estimates for approximately 60% of hospitalizations in the USA. Through patient-specific linkage numbers, patients are tracked across inpatient hospitalizations within each calendar year, thus limiting follow-up to a maximum of 12 months.
All adult (≥ 18 years) patients admitted with a diagnosis of large bowel obstruction and left/sigmoid colon cancer who underwent colectomy (left, extended left, sigmoid, subtotal), diversion, or colonic stenting were identified in the NRD using International Classification of Disease, Ninth and Tenth Edition (ICD-9 and ICD-10) codes (Supplemental Table 1). Hospitalizations lacking at least 60 days of follow-up time (90th percentile of time interval between stenting and colectomy on exploratory analysis) were excluded from the study. Additionally, those with missing data for key variables including age, sex, and in-hospital mortality were excluded (n = 66, < 1%). Study population and exclusion criteria are presented in Fig. 1. Patients not receiving colonic resection following stenting were not included in analysis as these patients may have either undergone palliative stenting, died in the outpatient setting, underwent surgery in a hospital not captured in the NRD, or did not have sufficient follow-up.
Table 1
Baseline characteristics of patients undergoing IR or DR (bridged with colonic stent)
 
IR (n = 8,764)
DR (n = 943)
P-value
Age
65.9 ± 14.5
63.9 ± 14.7
0.04
Female
3903 (45.8)
419 (44.4)
0.62
Elixhauser Comorbidity Index
3.89 ± 1.59
3.54 ± 1.57
0.001
Payer Status
  
0.03
Private
2393 (27.3)
330 (35.1)
 
Medicare
4560 (52.1)
424 (45.1)
 
Medicaid
972 (11.1)
122 (13.0)
 
Other Payera
828 (9.5)
65 (6.8)
 
Income Quartile
  
0.007
First (Lowest)
2565 (29.8)
223 (24.2)
 
Second
2127 (24.7)
196 (21.3)
 
Third
2081 (24.2)
234 (25.4)
 
Fourth (Highest)
1826 (21.1)
268 (29.1)
 
Laparoscopic Approach
1137 (13.0)
312 (33.1)
 < 0.001
Comorbidities
   
Anemia
1235 (14.1)
142 (15.0)
0.69
Coagulopathy
227 (2.6)
27 (2.9)
0.74
Chronic Liver Disease
370 (4.2)
56 (6.0)
0.15
Chronic Lung Disease
1034 (11.8)
81 (8.6)
0.16
Congestive Heart Failure
607 (6.9)
55 (5.9)
0.53
Coronary Artery Disease
931 (10.6)
101 (10.7)
0.95
Electrolyte Disorder
4231 (48.3)
423 (44.8)
0.25
Hypertension
4150 (47.4)
421 (44.6)
0.40
Hypothyroidism
630 (7.2)
67 (6.0)
0.36
Metastatic Disease
1474 (16.8)
171 (18.1)
0.59
Neurologic Disorder
305 (3.5)
15 (1.6)
0.06
Obesity
754 (8.6)
85 (9.0)
0.80
Peripheral Vascular Disorder
467 (5.3)
34 (3.6)
0.19
Pulmonary Circulatory Disorder
257 (2.9)
18 (2.0)
0.21
Renal Failure
540 (6.2)
62 (6.5)
0.82
Weight Loss
1865 (21.3)
162 (17.2)
0.09
Hospital Bed Size
  
0.001
Small
1230 (14.0)
75 (7.9)
 
Medium
2183 (24.9)
157 (16.7)
 
Large
5351 (61.1)
711 (75.4)
 
Colectomy Volumeb
  
 < 0.001
First Tertile (Low)
470 (5.4)
 < 10
 
Second Tertile
2329 (26.6)
94 (9.9)
 
Third Tertile (High)
5965 (68.1)
843 (89.4)
 
Teaching Hospital
4474 (51.1)
738 (78.3)
 < 0.001
Categorical variables reported as count and percentage. Continuous variables reported as mean and standard deviation.
aOther payer includes uninsured and self-pay.
bColectomy volume defined into three tertiles based on annual, institutional volume of colon resections
Patients who underwent colonic resection at the index hospitalization without preoperative stenting were considered the Immediate Resection (IR) group. The Delayed Resection (DR) group encompassed those who underwent colonic stent placement with resection at the index or subsequent hospitalization. Patients with a diagnosis of bowel ischemia or perforation were excluded if they underwent immediate resection, as these patients would not have been considered candidates for colonic stenting.

Variable definitions and outcomes

Patient and hospital characteristics were defined according to the NRD Data Dictionary and included age, sex, primary insurer (Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance or other), income quartile, hospital bed size and teaching status [15]. The Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, a previously validated composite score encompassing 30 chronic conditions, was used to quantify the burden of chronic disease [16]. Hospitals were divided into low-, medium-, and high-volume tertiles based on the annual institutional volume of colon resections. The development of infectious complications was not able to be ascertained, given significant undercoding of events, such as sepsis [17].
Mortality was defined as death during the hospitalization for stenting or colectomy. Complications were defined using ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis codes (Supplementary Table 1) and grouped into cardiac (ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, cardiac arrest), thromboembolic (deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism), and pulmonary (pneumonia, mechanical ventilation > 96 h). Length of stay (LOS) was assessed at the colectomy admission, and cumulatively when colonic stenting and colectomy were performed at separate admissions.
The primary outcome of the study was ostomy creation, while mortality and complications were secondarily considered.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables are reported as mean with standard deviation or median with interquartile range for non-normally distributed variables (LOS). Categorical variables are reported as count (n) and percentage (%). Chi-squared and adjusted Wald or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for comparisons of categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Temporal trends were assessed using Cuzick’s rank-based non-parametric test [18]. Entropy balancing was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between the IR and DR groups. This approach allows for retention of all observations and obviates the need for specific propensity score models. Entropy balancing has previously been shown to be a robust analytic method in observational and retrospective cohort studies [19, 20]. Following application of entropy balancing weights, generalized linear models were fit to evaluate the independent association between use of colonic stent as a bridge to resection and outcomes of interest. Additional adjustment for covariates was not necessary as this reweighting scheme produces balanced populations. A Gaussian distribution with square root link was used for length of stay. Model performance was assessed using Akaike and Bayesian information criteria. Regression results are reported as estimate with 95% confidence interval (CI).
Power analysis was performed a priori based on the primary outcome to identify the sample size needed to detect a difference between the immediate and delayed resection. An effect size of 20% relative reduction in ostomy rates for DR relative to IR was considered clinically significant, with an α = 0.05 and β = 0.20.
The Institutional Review Board at the University of California, Los Angeles deemed this study exempt from full review. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas). Statistical significance was set at an α < 0.05.

Results

Of an estimated 9,706 patients meeting study criteria, 9.7% comprised the DR group and underwent colonic stenting prior to resection (Fig. 1). The use of colonic stenting as a bridge to resection increased from 7.7% of cases in 2010 to 16.4% in 2016 (p < 0.001, Fig. 2). During the study period, ostomy rates decreased from 58.5 to 39.2% in the IR group (p < 0.001), but remained stable for DR (p = 0.61, Fig. 2).

Characteristics of patients undergoing colectomy with or without prior colonic stenting

Baseline characteristics of the immediate and delayed resection groups are reported in Table 1. There were no significant differences in age or sex between the two groups. Patients who underwent delayed resection were more commonly privately insured (35.1 vs 27.3%, p < 0.001) and in the highest income quartile (29.1 vs 21.1%, p < 0.001). Compared to IR, DR patients had a lower cumulative burden of comorbidities (Elixhauser Comorbidity Index 3.5 ± 1.6 vs 3.9 ± 1.6, p < 0.001), although the proportion of most specific comorbidities were similar between the two groups (Table 1). Patients in the DR group were more commonly treated at large, teaching hospitals that were in the highest tertile of colonic resection volume (Table 1).
The median time from admission to initial intervention was evaluated for both groups (Fig. 3). The median time from admission to colectomy was 2 days for the immediate resection group, while the median time to colonic stenting was 1 day for those who underwent delayed resection. Of those undergoing delayed resection, 55.1% underwent colectomy at the same admission and 44.9% at a subsequent hospitalization. Specifically, 52.8% underwent colectomy within 1 week, 66.4% within 2 weeks, and 81.4% within 4 weeks of discharge (Fig. 3).

Unadjusted and adjusted outcomes for delayed resection versus immediate resection

Unadjusted outcomes for the two groups are reported in Table 2. Compared to 53.0% of the IR group, 21.5% of DR patients received an ostomy (p < 0.001). Rates of all studied complications, including pneumonia, mechanical ventilation, aggregate cardiac or thromboembolic events, were similar between the two groups. Unadjusted in-hospital mortality was higher for IR (3.4%) compared to DR (1.2%, p = 0.006). Among patients undergoing DR, ostomy rates decreased as time from colonic stent placement to resection increased. Those who underwent resections on day 0, 1, or 2 following stent placement experienced ostomy rates of 40–50%, while patients undergoing colectomy on day 3 experienced rates of 11% (Fig. 4).
Table 2
Unadjusted outcomes and for immediate resection vs delayed resection groups
 
IR (n = 8764)
DR (n = 943)
P-value
In-hospital mortality
298 (3.4)
12 (1.2)
0.006
Ostomy creation
4643 (53.0)
203 (21.5)
 < 0.001
Complications
   
Pneumonia
670 (7.6)
52 (5.5)
0.19
Mechanical ventilation > 96 h
165 (1.9)
24 (2.5)
0.45
Thromboembolic (aggregate)
282 (3.2)
17 (1.8)
0.10
Cardiac (aggregate)
149 (1.7)
22 (2.4)
0.51
Variables reported as count and percentage
DR delayed resection, LOS length of stay, IR immediate resection
Risk adjustment using entropy balancing produced a well-balanced distribution of covariates between the two groups (Fig. 5). Delayed resection was associated with 0.35-fold adjusted odds (95% CI 0.27–0.41) of receiving an ostomy, relative to IR. There was no association between management strategy and mortality or complications (Table 3).
Table 3
Impact of colonic stenting on risk-adjusted outcomes
Outcome
Non-entropy balanced
P-value
Entropy-balanced
P-value
In-hospital mortality
0.36 (0.16, 0.77)
0.009
0.46 (0.21, 1.01)
0.05
Ostomy creation
0.24 (0.18, 0.33)
 < 0.001
0.34 (0.24, 0.46)
 < 0.001
Complications
    
Pneumonia
0.70 (0.41, 1.20)
0.19
0.88 (0.50, 1.57)
0.67
Mechanical ventilation (> 96 h)
1.34 (0.62, 2.89)
0.45
2.20 (1.00, 4.82)
0.05
Thromboembolic (aggregate)
0.55 (0.26, 1.14)
0.11
0.57 (0.26, 1.22)
0.15
Cardiac (aggregate)
1.42 (0.50, 4.00)
0.51
2.00 (0.69, 5.80)
0.20
Each estimate was derived from a separate generalized linear model with estimates for delayed resection relative to immediate resection. Estimates are reported before and after entropy balancing, which adequately adjusted for differences in the two groups (Fig. 5). Outcomes are reported as odds ratios with 95% confidence interval

Power analysis for primary outcome

Based on prior literature, we assumed a 40% baseline ostomy rate for those admitted with a malignant large bowel resection and undergoing colectomy. At an α = 0.05 and β = 0.20, to detect a 20% relative reduction in stoma rates, assuming a standard deviation of 15%, a total of 296 patients would be necessary in each group. Given the group sizes of 8,764 in the IR and 943 in the DR, we had sufficient sample size to detect our pre-specified clinically significant difference.

Discussion

Surgical management of malignant large bowel obstruction remains a challenging clinical entity and is associated with a host of potential systemic and organ-specific complications [5]. Colonic decompression has been suggested as a bridging method to definitive surgical management in order to allow for patient optimization. To our knowledge, the present work represents the first and largest national study comparing outcomes of patients bridged to resection with colonic stenting to those undergoing immediate colectomy. We found a significant increase in the use of colonic stenting as a bridge to resection between 2010 and 2016 from 7.7 to 16.4%. While colonic stenting was associated with lower odds of receiving an ostomy, in-hospital mortality and complications were similar to an immediate resection strategy. Several of these findings warrant further discussion.
A multitude of factors including lack of bowel preparation, malnutrition, and hemodynamic compromise contribute to high risk of complications associated with operations for LBO [21]. Colonic stenting has been proposed as an alternative to urgent resection or surgical diversion in select patients with bowel obstruction due to tumors in the left or sigmoid colon. Successful stenting facilitates rapid colonic decompression, allowing for a less urgent or elective resection [22]. Importantly, this strategy provides a time window for bowel preparation and correction of metabolic derangements [14]. Given the degree of decompression achieved by colonic stenting, operations may be safer and allow for the use of minimally invasive techniques, potentially obviating the need for diversion [22]. In the present analysis, we found colonic stenting as a bridge to resection to be utilized in nearly 10% of all malignant LBO cases. On risk-adjusted analysis, the odds of having a stoma were approximately one-third in the delayed resection group compared to immediate. Interestingly, operations performed within 0–2 days of colonic stenting carried a higher rate of stoma creation, perhaps attributable to unsuccessful stenting, inadequate decompression or perforation [12, 23]. The noted reduction in stoma creation in primary operations over the study period likely reflects the evolution of operative techniques and an improved understanding of risk factors for anastomotic leaks in recent years. Strategy aside, stoma creation is associated with significantly reduced quality of life and mandates a second reversal operation in some cases [24]. With this point in mind, colonic stenting may be a suitable alternative to immediate resection and reduce the need for diversion.
An interesting finding of the study is the similar risk-adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality and complications noted between the DR and IR groups. The two cohorts were comparable in regards to age and comorbidities that were captured in the database. We used entropy balancing to mitigate the effects of bias when comparing the two management strategies [19, 20]. While unadjusted mortality was nearly three times higher in the IR group, this difference was no longer significant on risk-adjusted analysis. Increased multidisciplinary expertise at centers that employ colonic stenting, an advanced endoscopic procedure, as well as potentially higher acuity in patients undergoing immediate resection may explain such findings. On the other hand, patients warranting a resection shortly after stent placement may represent a group with complications such as perforation and may be at increased risk of mortality. In a study of patients in the state of New York, Dolan and colleagues evaluated the outcomes 139 propensity-matched pairs with malignant LBO and found a similar risk of procedural complications between immediate resection and those bridged to resection using colonic stenting [25]. Importantly, in the present work, we found that preoperative stenting allowed for a nearly threefold increase in use of laparoscopic technique for colonic resection. Minimally-invasive approaches, when safe, are often preferred by patients, reduce postoperative pain, and rates of ileus and wound complications [26, 27]. Taken together, our results point to the relative safety of colonic decompression prior to definitive surgical resection in patients who are otherwise deemed candidates for stenting.
While the present study focused on colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery, diverting ostomy followed by definitive resection with or without ostomy reversal represents an alternate management strategy. In a cohort of 443 patients with obstructive left-sided colon cancer undergoing stenting or diverting ostomy as a bridge to resection, survival and locoregional recurrence rates were comparable in both groups [28]. However, the authors found an initial strategy of diverting ostomy to be associated with greater post-resection stomas and subsequent interventions, but lower resection-related complications. As clinical equipoise currently exists for both bridging strategies, treatment should be individualized based on patient and institutional factors noting that initial stenting may lead to avoidance of an ostomy. It is likely that avoidance of an ostomy, when clinically appropriate, is preferred by most patients and results in improved quality of life measures. Further studies comparing bridging strategies in contemporary cohorts or a randomized controlled trial may better delineate the optimal bridging strategy.
This study has several limitations inherent to its design and the structure of the NRD. We limited our analysis to patients admitted with left or sigmoid colon malignant large bowel obstruction, as this population is more amenable to colonic stenting. Limited information regarding clinical factors, including tumor size and cancer stage, are available in the NRD. For the delayed resection group, analysis was only performed for patients bridged to resection with colonic stenting, rather than all patients receiving colonic stents, to ensure appropriate comparison with the immediate resection group. To ensure comparability of the immediate resection to the delayed resection group, patients who carried a diagnosis of bowel perforation or ischemia and underwent immediate resection were excluded, as these patients would not be candidates for colonic stenting. Due to the structure of NRD, follow-up time is limited to a single calendar year and, as such, we could not evaluate ostomy takedown rates or measures of resource use, such as cumulative costs, length of stay, or readmission events. Similarly, quality of life measures, oncologic outcomes, and long-term follow-up data are not available in NRD, limiting our outcome assessment to inpatient measures. Nonetheless, our study includes the largest, nationally representative sample of patients with malignant large bowel obstruction and reports on practice patterns and real-world outcomes of colonic stents as bridge to resection compared to immediate resection.
In conclusion, we found greater use of colonic stenting as a strategy to bridge patients to resection for those admitted with malignant, left-sided large bowel obstruction. Compared to immediate resection, bridging was associated with similar inpatient mortality and morbidity, but significantly reduced rates of ostomy formation as well as greater use of laparoscopic surgery. Among patients who underwent colonic stenting, those undergoing resection within 2 days had ostomy formation rates similar to those undergoing immediate resection. These findings support the relative safety of colonic stenting as a bridge to resection for malignant large bowel obstruction when clinically safe and feasible.

Acknowledgements

None.

Declarations

Disclosures

Dr. Joseph Hadaya, Arjun Verma, Dr. Yas Sanaiha, Russyan Mark Mabeza, Dr. Formosa Chen, and Dr. Peyman Benharash have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

Die Chirurgie

Print-Titel

Das Abo mit mehr Tiefe

Mit der Zeitschrift Die Chirurgie erhalten Sie zusätzlich Online-Zugriff auf weitere 43 chirurgische Fachzeitschriften, CME-Fortbildungen, Webinare, Vorbereitungskursen zur Facharztprüfung und die digitale Enzyklopädie e.Medpedia.

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Anhänge

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat CDC (2018) An Update on Cancer Deaths in the United States | CDC. Center for Disease, Control and Prevention CDC (2018) An Update on Cancer Deaths in the United States | CDC. Center for Disease, Control and Prevention
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Frago R, Ramirez E, Millan M, Kreisler E, Del Valle E, Biondo S (2014) Current management of acute malignant large bowel obstruction: a systematic review. Am J Surg 207(1):127–138CrossRefPubMed Frago R, Ramirez E, Millan M, Kreisler E, Del Valle E, Biondo S (2014) Current management of acute malignant large bowel obstruction: a systematic review. Am J Surg 207(1):127–138CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Alvarez JA, Baldonedo RF, Bear IG, Truán N, Pire G, Alvarez P (2005) Presentation, treatment, and multivariate analysis of risk factors for obstructive and perforative colorectal carcinoma. Am J Surg 190(3):376–382CrossRefPubMed Alvarez JA, Baldonedo RF, Bear IG, Truán N, Pire G, Alvarez P (2005) Presentation, treatment, and multivariate analysis of risk factors for obstructive and perforative colorectal carcinoma. Am J Surg 190(3):376–382CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Markogiannakis H, Messaris E, Dardamanis D, Pararas N, Tzertzemelis D, Giannopoulos P et al (2007) Acute mechanical bowel obstruction: clinical presentation, etiology, management and outcome. World J Gastroenterol 13(3):432–437CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Markogiannakis H, Messaris E, Dardamanis D, Pararas N, Tzertzemelis D, Giannopoulos P et al (2007) Acute mechanical bowel obstruction: clinical presentation, etiology, management and outcome. World J Gastroenterol 13(3):432–437CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Barnett A, Cedar A, Siddiqui F, Herzig D, Fowlkes E, Thomas CR (2013) Colorectal cancer emergencies. J Gastrointest Cancer 44(2):132–142CrossRefPubMed Barnett A, Cedar A, Siddiqui F, Herzig D, Fowlkes E, Thomas CR (2013) Colorectal cancer emergencies. J Gastrointest Cancer 44(2):132–142CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Kennedy GD, Heise C, Rajamanickam V, Harms B, Foley EF (2009) Laparoscopy decreases postoperative complication rates after abdominal colectomy: results from the national surgical quality improvement program. Ann Surg 249(4):596–601CrossRefPubMed Kennedy GD, Heise C, Rajamanickam V, Harms B, Foley EF (2009) Laparoscopy decreases postoperative complication rates after abdominal colectomy: results from the national surgical quality improvement program. Ann Surg 249(4):596–601CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Keller DS, Pedraza R, Flores-Gonzalez JR, LeFave JP, Mahmood A, Haas EM (2015) The current status of emergent laparoscopic colectomy: a population-based study of clinical and financial outcomes. Surg Endosc 30(8):3321–3326CrossRefPubMed Keller DS, Pedraza R, Flores-Gonzalez JR, LeFave JP, Mahmood A, Haas EM (2015) The current status of emergent laparoscopic colectomy: a population-based study of clinical and financial outcomes. Surg Endosc 30(8):3321–3326CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Amelung FJ, Burghgraef TA, Tanis PJ, van Hooft JE, ter Borg F, Siersema PD et al (2018) Critical appraisal of oncological safety of stent as bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructing colon cancer; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 131:66–75CrossRefPubMed Amelung FJ, Burghgraef TA, Tanis PJ, van Hooft JE, ter Borg F, Siersema PD et al (2018) Critical appraisal of oncological safety of stent as bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructing colon cancer; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 131:66–75CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Amelung FJ, Borstlap WAA, Consten ECJ, Veld JV, van Halsema EE, Bemelman WA et al (2019) Propensity score-matched analysis of oncological outcome between stent as bridge to surgery and emergency resection in patients with malignant left-sided colonic obstruction. Br J Surg 106(8):1075–1086CrossRefPubMed Amelung FJ, Borstlap WAA, Consten ECJ, Veld JV, van Halsema EE, Bemelman WA et al (2019) Propensity score-matched analysis of oncological outcome between stent as bridge to surgery and emergency resection in patients with malignant left-sided colonic obstruction. Br J Surg 106(8):1075–1086CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat De Ceglie A, Filiberti R, Baron TH, Ceppi M, Conio M (2013) A meta-analysis of endoscopic stenting as bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer obstruction. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 88(2):387–403CrossRefPubMed De Ceglie A, Filiberti R, Baron TH, Ceppi M, Conio M (2013) A meta-analysis of endoscopic stenting as bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer obstruction. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 88(2):387–403CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Pirlet IA, Slim K, Kwiatkowski F, Michot F, Millat BL (2010) Emergency preoperative stenting versus surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 25(6):1814–1821CrossRefPubMed Pirlet IA, Slim K, Kwiatkowski F, Michot F, Millat BL (2010) Emergency preoperative stenting versus surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 25(6):1814–1821CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Van Hooft JE, Bemelman WA, Oldenburg B, Marinelli AW, Holzik MFL, Grubben MJ et al (2011) Colonic stenting versus emergency surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 12(4):344–352CrossRefPubMed Van Hooft JE, Bemelman WA, Oldenburg B, Marinelli AW, Holzik MFL, Grubben MJ et al (2011) Colonic stenting versus emergency surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 12(4):344–352CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Spannenburg L, Sanchez Gonzalez M, Brooks A, Wei S, Li X, Liang X et al (2020) Surgical outcomes of colonic stents as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high quality prospective and randomised controlled trials. Eur J Surg Oncol 46(8):1404–1414CrossRefPubMed Spannenburg L, Sanchez Gonzalez M, Brooks A, Wei S, Li X, Liang X et al (2020) Surgical outcomes of colonic stents as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high quality prospective and randomised controlled trials. Eur J Surg Oncol 46(8):1404–1414CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Vogel JD, Eskicioglu C, Weiser MR, Feingold DL, Steele SR (2017) The American society of colon and rectal surgeons clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 60(10):999–1017CrossRefPubMed Vogel JD, Eskicioglu C, Weiser MR, Feingold DL, Steele SR (2017) The American society of colon and rectal surgeons clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 60(10):999–1017CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Van Walraven C, Austin PC, Jennings A, Quan H, Forster AJ (2009) A modification of the Elixhauser comorbidity measures into a point system for hospital death using administrative data. Med Care 47(6):626–633CrossRefPubMed Van Walraven C, Austin PC, Jennings A, Quan H, Forster AJ (2009) A modification of the Elixhauser comorbidity measures into a point system for hospital death using administrative data. Med Care 47(6):626–633CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Jolley RJ, Quan H, Jette N, Sawka KJ, Diep L, Goliath J et al (2015) Validation and optimization of an ICD-10-coded case definition for sepsis using administrative health data. BMJ Open 15:e009487CrossRef Jolley RJ, Quan H, Jette N, Sawka KJ, Diep L, Goliath J et al (2015) Validation and optimization of an ICD-10-coded case definition for sepsis using administrative health data. BMJ Open 15:e009487CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Parish WJ, Keyes V, Beadles C, Kandilov A (2017) Using entropy balancing to strengthen an observational cohort study design: lessons learned from an evaluation of a complex multi-state federal demonstration. Heal Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 18(1):17–46CrossRef Parish WJ, Keyes V, Beadles C, Kandilov A (2017) Using entropy balancing to strengthen an observational cohort study design: lessons learned from an evaluation of a complex multi-state federal demonstration. Heal Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 18(1):17–46CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhao Q, Percival D (2017) Entropy balancing is doubly robust. J Causal Inference. 5:1CrossRef Zhao Q, Percival D (2017) Entropy balancing is doubly robust. J Causal Inference. 5:1CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Biondo S, Parés D, Frago R, Martí-Ragué J, Kreisler E, De Oca J et al (2004) Large bowel obstruction: predictive factors for postoperative mortality. Dis Colon Rectum 47(11):1889–1897CrossRefPubMed Biondo S, Parés D, Frago R, Martí-Ragué J, Kreisler E, De Oca J et al (2004) Large bowel obstruction: predictive factors for postoperative mortality. Dis Colon Rectum 47(11):1889–1897CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Kaplan J, Strongin A, Adler DG, Siddiqui AA (2014) Enteral stents for the management of malignant colorectal obstruction. World J Gastroenterol 20(37):13239–13245CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kaplan J, Strongin A, Adler DG, Siddiqui AA (2014) Enteral stents for the management of malignant colorectal obstruction. World J Gastroenterol 20(37):13239–13245CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Huang X, Lv B, Zhang S, Meng L, Huang X, Lv B et al (2014) Preoperative colonic stents versus emergency surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 18:584–591CrossRefPubMed Huang X, Lv B, Zhang S, Meng L, Huang X, Lv B et al (2014) Preoperative colonic stents versus emergency surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 18:584–591CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Vonk-Klaassen SM, de Vocht HM, den Ouden MEM, Eddes EH, Schuurmans MJ (2016) Ostomy-related problems and their impact on quality of life of colorectal cancer ostomates: a systematic review. Qual Life Res 25:125–133CrossRefPubMed Vonk-Klaassen SM, de Vocht HM, den Ouden MEM, Eddes EH, Schuurmans MJ (2016) Ostomy-related problems and their impact on quality of life of colorectal cancer ostomates: a systematic review. Qual Life Res 25:125–133CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan PT, Abelson JS, Symer M, Nowels M, Sedrakyan A, Yeo HL (2020) Colonic stents as a bridge to surgery compared with immediate resection in patients with malignant large bowel obstruction in a NY state database. J Gastrointest Surg 25(3):809–817CrossRefPubMed Dolan PT, Abelson JS, Symer M, Nowels M, Sedrakyan A, Yeo HL (2020) Colonic stents as a bridge to surgery compared with immediate resection in patients with malignant large bowel obstruction in a NY state database. J Gastrointest Surg 25(3):809–817CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Steele SR, Brown TA, Rush RM, Martin MJ (2008) Laparoscopic vs open colectomy for colon cancer: results from a large nationwide population-based analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 12(3):583–591CrossRefPubMed Steele SR, Brown TA, Rush RM, Martin MJ (2008) Laparoscopic vs open colectomy for colon cancer: results from a large nationwide population-based analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 12(3):583–591CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Wilson MZ, Hollenbeak CS, Stewart DB (2014) Laparoscopic colectomy is associated with a lower incidence of postoperative complications than open colectomy: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis. Color Dis 16(5):382–389CrossRef Wilson MZ, Hollenbeak CS, Stewart DB (2014) Laparoscopic colectomy is associated with a lower incidence of postoperative complications than open colectomy: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis. Color Dis 16(5):382–389CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Veld JV, Amelung FJ, Borstlap WAA, Van Halsema EE, Consten ECJ, Siersema PD et al (2020) Comparison of decompressing stoma vs stent as a bridge to surgery for left-sided obstructive colon cancer. JAMA Surg 155(3):206–215CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Veld JV, Amelung FJ, Borstlap WAA, Van Halsema EE, Consten ECJ, Siersema PD et al (2020) Comparison of decompressing stoma vs stent as a bridge to surgery for left-sided obstructive colon cancer. JAMA Surg 155(3):206–215CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
Preoperative stents for the treatment of obstructing left-sided colon cancer: a national analysis
verfasst von
Joseph Hadaya
Arjun Verma
Yas Sanaiha
Russyan Mark Mabeza
Formosa Chen
Peyman Benharash
Publikationsdatum
11.10.2022
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 3/2023
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09650-8

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Ab sofort gelten die neuen Verordnungsausnahmen für Lipidsenker

Freie Fahrt für Lipidsenker? Das nicht, doch mit niedrigerem Schwellenwert fürs Infarktrisiko und neuen Indikationen hat der G-BA die Verordnungs-Handbremse ein gutes Stück weit gelockert.

Appendizitis und Darminfarkt durch Blinddarm-Lipom

Eigentlich sind Lipome recht harmlos. Im Zäkum können sie jedoch erhebliche Komplikationen mit Darminfarkt und Appendizitis verursachen.

Gluteuslappen nach Rektumkarzinom-Op. schützt vor Abszessen

Die Wunddeckung mit einem autologen Rotationslappen nach Entfernung eines Rektumkarzinoms konnte in einer randomisierten Studie gegenüber dem primären Wundverschluss vor allem in einer Hinsicht punkten: Sie führte deutlich seltener zu präsakralen Abszessen.

MedTalk Leitlinie KOMPAKT: S3-Leitline zu peripheren Nervenverletzungen

  • Webinar | 10.02.2025 | 13:00

Über den Weg zur finalen Fassung der S3-Leitlinie "Versorgung peripherer Nervenverletzungen" sprechen Prof. Dr. Leila Harhaus-Wähner und Ressortleiter Dr. Gunter Freese im WebTalk Leitlinie KOMPAKT, einer neuen Webcast-Serie von SpringerMedizin passend zu Ihrem Fachmagazin Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Mitteilungen und Nachrichten. In dem kurzen Video geht es darum, was sich im Vergleich zur vorigen Fassung der Leitlinie geändert hat, welche Aspekte für die tägliche Praxis besonders wichtig sind und was jeder gemäß Leitlinie nun anders oder besser machen sollte.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.