Stenting for colorectal cancer obstruction in Icelandic patients

Asbjarnardottir, Margret Gudrun; Valsdóttir, Elsa B.; Sigurðsson, Helgi; Möller, Páll Helgi

doi:10.17992/lbl.2020.12.610

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The main argument in favor of stenting is based on the high possibility of a subsequent elective resection procedure instead of a high-risk emergency resection that has increased risks of morbidity and mortality[ 25 , 66 , 68 - 70 ]. Furthermore, it may increase the possibility of primary anastomosis limiting the creation of stomas and the chance for laparoscopic operations[ 1 , 32 , 39 , 65 , 71 ].…”

Section: Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of obstructed colorectal carcinoma in an emergency setting: An update

Pavlidis,

Galanis,

Pavlidis

2024

World J Gastrointest Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Colorectal carcinoma is common, particularly on the left side. In 20% of patients, obstruction and ileus may be the first clinical manifestations of a carcinoma that has advanced (stage II, III or even IV). Diagnosis is based on clinical presentation, plain abdominal radiogram, computed tomography (CT), CT colonography and positron emission tomography/CT. The best management strategy in terms of short-term operative or interventional and long-term oncological outcomes remains unknown. For the most common left-sided obstruction, the first choice should be either emergency surgery or endoscopic decompression by self-expendable metal stents or tubes. The operative plan should be either one-stage or two-stage resection. One-stage resection with on-table bowel decompression and irrigation can be accompanied or not accompanied by proximal defunctioning stoma (colostomy or ileostomy). Primary anastomosis is more convenient but has increased risks of anastomotic leakage and morbidity. Two-stage resection (Hartmann’s procedure) is safer and the most widely used despite temporally affecting quality of life. Damage control surgery in high-risk frail patients is less frequently performed since it can be successfully substituted with endoscopic stenting or tubing. For the less common right-sided obstruction, one-stage surgical resection is more beneficial than endoscopic decompression. The role of minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotic) is a subject of debate. Emergency laparoscopic-assisted management is advantageous to some extent but requires much expertise due to inherent difficulties in dissecting the distended colon and the risk of rupture and subsequent septic complications. The decompressing stent as a bridge to elective surgery more substantially decreases the risks of morbidity and mortality than emergency surgery for decompression and has equivalent medium-term overall survival and disease-free survival rates. Its combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation may have a positive effect on long-term oncological outcomes. Management plans are crucial and must be individualized to better fit each case.

show abstract