论文部分内容阅读
AIM To investigate by meta-analytic study and systematic review, advantages of colonic stent placement in comparison with emergency surgery.METHODS We conducted an extensive literature search by PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase and the Cochrane Libraries. We searched for all the papers in English published till February 2016, by applying combinations of the following terms: Obstructive colon cancer, colon cancer in emergency, colorectal stenting, emergency surgery for colorectal cancer, guidelines for obstructive colorectal cancer, stenting vs emergency surgery in the treatment of obstructive colorectal cancer, selfexpanding metallic stents, stenting as bridge to surgery. The study was designed following the PrismaStatement. By our search, we identified 452 studies, and 57 potentially relevant studies in full-text were reviewed by 2 investigators; ultimately, 9 randomized controlled trials were considered for meta-analysis and all the others were considered for systematic review.RESULTS In the meta-analysis, by comparing colonic stenting(CS) as bridge to surgery and emergency surgery, the pooled analysis showed no significant difference between the two techniques in terms of mortality [odds ratio(oR) = 0.91], morbidity(oR = 2.38) or permanent stoma rate(oR = 1.67); primary anastomosis was more frequent in the stent group(oR = 0.45; P = 0.004) and stoma creation was more frequent in the emergency surgery group(oR = 2.36; P = 0.002). No statistical difference was found in disease-free survival and overall survival. The pooled analysis showed a significant difference between the colonic stent and emergency surgery groups(oR = 0.37), with a significantly higher 1-year recurrence rate in the stent group(P = 0.007).CONCLUSION CS improves primary anastomosis rate with significantly high 1-year follow-up recurrence and no statistical difference in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival.
AIM To investigate by meta-analytic study and systematic review, advantages of colonic stent placement in comparison with emergency surgery. METHODS We conducted an extensive literature search by PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase and the Cochrane Library. published till February 2016, by applying combinations of the following terms: Obstructive colon cancer, colon cancer in emergency, colorectal stenting, emergency surgery for colorectal cancer, guidelines for obstructive colorectal cancer, stenting vs emergency surgery in the treatment of obstructive colorectal cancer, selfexpanding By our search, we identified 452 studies, and 57 potentially relevant studies in full-text were reviewed by 2 investigators; ultimately, 9 randomized controlled trials were considered for meta-analysis and all the others were considered for systematic review .RESULTS In the meta-analysis, by comparing colonic stenting (CS) as bridge to surgery and emergency surgery, the pooled analysis showed no significant difference between the two techniques in terms of mortality [odds ratio (oR) = 0.91], morbidity (oR = (OR = 0.45; P = 0.004) and stoma creation was more frequent in the emergency surgery group (oR = 2.36; P = 0.002) . No statistical difference was found in disease-free survival and overall survival. The pooled analysis showed a significant difference between the colonic stent and emergency surgery groups (oR = 0.37), with a significantly higher 1-year recurrence rate in the stent group ( P = 0.007) .CONCLUSION CS improves primary anastomosis rate with significantly high 1-year follow-up recurrence and no statistical difference in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival.