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

Table 1 Evaluation of endoscopic stenting short-term outcomes

Ref.	Patients (Nu)	Study	Tech success (%)	Clin success (%)	Perfo-ration (%)	Migration occlusion (%)
Recuenco et al[39]	69	Single center retrospective Spain	97.5	91.3	13	2.9
Angulo McGrath et al[63]	92	Single center retrospective Spain	92.4	89.1	9.8	-
Sasaki et al[81]	202	Single center retrospective Japan	97.5	96	0	2.5
Yan et al[49]	434	Single center retrospective China	98.6	94.9	1,4	0.5
Kuwai et al[87]	208	Multicenter prospective Japan	99	92.8	1.9	1.3
Lee et al[77]	60	Single center retrospective Korea	93.3	80.5	5.3	12.5

Table 2 Comparison results of endoscopic stenting and endoscopic tubing

Ref.	Patients (Nu)	Study	Clin success	Complications	Survival
Inoue et al[28]	48	Single center retrospective Japan	Better in stenting (100% vs 80.6%)	Similar (0 vs 4%)	Equivalent (5-yr: 69.5% vs 38.4%)
Xu et al[29]	704	Meta-analysis China	Better in stenting (94.5% vs 86.1%)	Fewer in stenting (6.9% vs 12.4%)	-
Kagami et al[30]	53	Single center retrospective Japan	Better in stenting (100% vs 81.8%)	Fewer in stenting (0 vs 18.2%)	Equivalent (3-yr: 73% vs 80.9%)
Matsuda et al[89]	581	Meta-analysis Japan	Better in stenting (93.2% vs 77.3%)	Equivalent (5.5% vs. 11.7%)	-
Numata et al[31]	225	Multicenter prospective Japan	Better in stenting (92.6% vs 75.3%)	Fewer posto-perative in stenting (21.1% vs 33.3%)	Similar (3 yr: 87.1% vs 90.5%)
Takahashi et al[53]	35	Single center prospective Japan	Similar (88% vs 90%)	Similar (12% vs 10%)	1Increased circulating DNA on day 7 in stenting (992 vs 308 ng/mL)
Suzuki et al[18]	40	Single center retrospective Japan	Similar (89.5% vs 85.7%)	Similar (10.5% vs 14.2%)	Better in tubing (5 yr: 79.5% vs 32%)

¹Highlight of importance.

Table 3 Comparison results of emergency resection and endoscopic stenting as bridge to surgery

Ref.	Patients (Nu)	Study	Morbidity	Mortality	Long-term outcome
McKechnie et al[24]	9403	Meta-analysis Canada	Similar (27.2% vs 27.8%)	Improved in stenting (4.4% vs 6.1%)	Equivalent (insufficient data)
Paniagua García-Señoráns et al[42]	251	Single centre Retrospective Spain	Improved in stenting (36% vs 62.5%)	Equivalent (5.3% vs 6.3%)	Equivalent (3-yr DFS: 31.4.6% vs 33.4%, 3-yr OS: 37.5% vs 36.1%)
Wang et al[70]	78	Single centre Retrospective China	Similar (16.2% vs 26.8%)	Similar (0 vs 4.9%)	Similar (median overall survival: 36 months for both groups)
Hadaya et al[1]	9706	Nation-wide United States	Similar (12.2% vs 14.4%)	Similar (1.2% vs 3.4%)	Undetermined
Balciscueta et al[85]	1273	Meta-analysis Spain	-	-	Worse in stenting; 1Higher risk of perineural (45.6% vs 32.6%)- lymphatic (47.4 % vs 42%) invasion
Spannenburg et al[86]	3894	Meta-analysis Australia	Improved in stenting (26.09% vs 41.4%)	Improved in stenting (6.5% vs 8.1%)	Similar recurrence (31% vs 25%)
Boeding et al[101]	600	Meta-analysis Netherlands	Improved in stenting (30% vs 42%)	Improved in stenting (1.2% vs 7.2%)	Similar (5-yr DFS: 65.6% vs 63.1%, 5-yr OS: 66.9% vs 64%)

¹Highlight of importance.

DFS: Disease-free survival; OS: Overall survival.

Table 4 Advantages and disadvantages of stenting and tubing

Method	Advantages	Disadvantages
Endoscopic stenting	Higher clinical success; fewer complications	More expensive
Endoscopic tubing	Lower cost	Lower clinical success; more complications