Role of Self-Expanding Metallic Stents in the Management of Malignant Obstruction of the Proximal Colon

Abstract

Self-expanding metal stents are safe and effective in the management of malignant large-bowel obstruction proximal to the splenic flexure. The technical and clinical success rates are comparable with those reported for stenting distal colonic lesions.

Stenting for colorectal cancer obstruction compared to surgery—a study of consecutive patients in a single institution

“…Seven patients died Despite this, the length of hospital stay and the 30-day mortality were significantly lower in the stented group compared to the surgery group. Although it is clear that many complications are serious and that the mortality is increased in patients with complications, the numbers are comparable with the literature [10,15,[19][20][21][22] and the mortality rate after stenting is still lower than after surgery alone. The long-term efficacy of stenting is of course important and some previous figures in the literature have been discouraging [39].…”

“…Several series have shown good results with few complications in primary stenting of acute colonic obstruction [10,15,[19][20][21][22]. There are few randomized trials comparing emergency surgery and stenting [23].…”

Community experience of colonic stenting in patients with acute large bowel obstructions

“…This success rate is similar to that reported in other studies. [3][4][5] We postulate that the 1 patient who experienced a cecal perforation may have had stent failure since the patient was passing gas and stool for 2 days before the perforation. Furthermore, we cannot comment on the patient's colonic motility, which could have been a contributing factor in the perforation.…”

Emergency resection versus bridge to surgery with stenting in patients with acute right-sided colonic obstruction: a systematic review focusing on mortality and morbidity rates

“…Cross-reference searching yielded another four articles relevant for this review. In total, 14 studies were included in this systematic review [3,5,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] (Fig. 1).…”