AIM:To investigate the effects of emergent preopera-tive self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) vs emer-gent surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction. METHODS:Two investigators independently searched ...AIM:To investigate the effects of emergent preopera-tive self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) vs emer-gent surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction. METHODS:Two investigators independently searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, as well as references of included studies to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared two or more surgical approaches for acute colonic obstruction. Summary risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI for colonic stenting and emergent surgery were calculated. RESULTS:Eight studies met the selection criteria, involving 444 patients, of whom 219 underwent SEMS and 225 underwent emergent surgery. Seven studies reported difference of the one-stage stoma rates between the two groups (RR, 0.60; 95% CI:0.48-0.76; P < 0.0001). Only three RCTs described the follow-up stoma rates, which showed no significant difference between the two groups (RR, 0.80; 95% CI:0.59-1.08; P = 0.14). Difference was not significant in the mortality between the two groups (RR, 0.91; 95% CI:0.50-1.66; P = 0.77), but there was significant difference (RR, 0.57; 95% CI:0.44-0.74; P < 0.0001) in the overall morbidity. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the anastomotic leak rate (RR, 0.60; 95% CI: 0.28-1.28; P = 0.19), occurrence of abscesses, including peristomal abscess, intraperitoneal abscess and parietal abscess (RR, 0.83; 95% CI:0.36-1.95; P = 0.68), and other abdominal complications (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.40-1.12; P = 0.13). CONCLUSION:SEMS is not obviously more advantageous than emergent surgery for patients with acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction.展开更多
文摘AIM:To investigate the effects of emergent preopera-tive self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) vs emer-gent surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction. METHODS:Two investigators independently searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, as well as references of included studies to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared two or more surgical approaches for acute colonic obstruction. Summary risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI for colonic stenting and emergent surgery were calculated. RESULTS:Eight studies met the selection criteria, involving 444 patients, of whom 219 underwent SEMS and 225 underwent emergent surgery. Seven studies reported difference of the one-stage stoma rates between the two groups (RR, 0.60; 95% CI:0.48-0.76; P < 0.0001). Only three RCTs described the follow-up stoma rates, which showed no significant difference between the two groups (RR, 0.80; 95% CI:0.59-1.08; P = 0.14). Difference was not significant in the mortality between the two groups (RR, 0.91; 95% CI:0.50-1.66; P = 0.77), but there was significant difference (RR, 0.57; 95% CI:0.44-0.74; P < 0.0001) in the overall morbidity. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the anastomotic leak rate (RR, 0.60; 95% CI: 0.28-1.28; P = 0.19), occurrence of abscesses, including peristomal abscess, intraperitoneal abscess and parietal abscess (RR, 0.83; 95% CI:0.36-1.95; P = 0.68), and other abdominal complications (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.40-1.12; P = 0.13). CONCLUSION:SEMS is not obviously more advantageous than emergent surgery for patients with acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction.
