A retrospective evaluation of short-term results from colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant intestinal obstruction

Abstract Purpose The efficacy and safety of self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement as a bridge to elective surgery versus emergency surgery to treat malignant intestinal obstruction is debated. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with malignant intestinal obstruction treated using different procedure. Methods Subjects admitted to the authors’ department with colonic obstruction (n = 87) were studied. They underwent colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery (SEMS group: n = 14) or emergency surgery (ES group:n = 22).Their demographic characteristics, stoma rate, laparoscopy rate and postoperative complications were analyzed, and the potential risk factors of postoperative complications and the optimal time interval from SEMS implantation to elective surgery were explored. Results The stoma rate was 15% in the SEMS group versus 60% in the ES group (P = 0.02), and the postoperative complication rate was 8% in the SEMS group versus 40% in the ES group (P = 0.04). The proportion of patients undergoing laparoscopy in SEMS group was significantly higher than that in ES group (69% vs. 15%; P = 0.003).The effect of ASA grade on postoperative complications was statistically significant (OR = 24.6; P = 0.008). The Receiving operating characteristic(ROC) curve could not determine the optimal time interval between SEMS implantation and elective surgery (AUC = 0.466). Conclusions SEMS implantation has the advantages of lower temporary stoma rate, less postoperative complications and higher laparoscopy rate compared with ES in the treatment of left malignant intestinal obstruction. ASA grade is a risk factor for postoperative complications. However, larger sample size prospective randomized controlled trials(RCT) are still needed to confirm long-term oncological outcomes.