Comparison of decompression tubes with metallic stents for the management of right-sided malignant colonic obstruction

BACKGROUND Emergency surgical resection is a standard treatment for right-sided malignant colonic obstruction; however, the procedure is associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity. Although a bridge to surgery can be created to obviate the need for emergency surgery, its effects on long-term outcomes and the most practical management strategies for right-sided malignant colonic obstruction remain unclear.AIM To determine the appropriate management approach for right-sided malignant colonic obstruction.METHODS Forty patients with right-sided malignant colonic obstruction who underwent curative resection from January 2007 to April 2017 were included in the study.We compared the perioperative and long-term outcomes of patients who received bridges to surgery established using decompression tubes and those created using self-expandable metallic stents(SEMS). The primary outcome was the overall survival duration(OS) and the secondary endpoints were the diseasefree survival(DFS) duration and the preoperative and postoperative morbidity rates. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.RESULTS There were 21 patients in the decompression tube group and 19 in the SEMS group. There were no significant differences in the perioperative morbidity rates of the two groups. The OS rate was significantly higher in the decompression tube group than in the SEMS group(5-year OS rate; decompression tube 79.5%,SEMS 32%, P = 0.043). Multivariate analysis revealed that the bridge to surgery using a decompression tube was significantly associated with the OS(hazard ratio, 17.41; P = 0.004). The 3-year DFS rate was significantly higher in thedecompression tube group than in the SEMS group(68.9% vs 45.9%; log-rank test,P = 0.032). A propensity score–adjusted analysis also demonstrated that the prognosis was significantly better in the decompression tube group than in the SEMS group.CONCLUSION The bridge to surgery using trans-nasal and trans-anal decompression tubes for right-sided malignant colonic obstruction is safe and may improve long-term outcomes.

A Comparison of Arterial Oxygenation between 60% O2 CPAP and 100% O2 CPAP during One-Lung Ventilation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

Background: One-lung ventilation (OLV) is generally adopted for thoracic surgery. The systemic application of a high fraction of inspiratory oxygen (F1O2) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to the non-ventilated lung is useful for preventing arterial oxygen desaturation. The adverse effects of elevated F1O2 include oxidative lung injury, resorption atelectasis and coronary and peripheral vasoconstriction. It is preferable to avoid hyperoxemia in patients with complications such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, idiopathic pneumonia, and bleomycin-treated lungs. We aimed to determine whether the application of 60% O2 CPAP to the non-ventilated lung is sufficient to provide adequate oxygenation with 60% O2 to the ventilated lung. Methods: A total of 70 patients scheduled to receive elective thoracic surgery requiring OLV were recruited. Left double-lumen tubes were applicable in all surgeries. Patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups, to receive either 60% O2 CPAP (60% CPAP group, n = 35), or 100% O2 CPAP (100% CPAP group, n = 35) at a setting of 2 - 3 cmH2O, applied to the non-ventilated lung. Arterial blood gas analyses were obtained at the following stages: RA, spontaneous breathing under room air (RA);TLV, during total lung ventilation (TLV) prior to the initiation of OLV;T5, 5 min after the initiation of OLV;T15, 15 min after the initiation of OLV;T30, 30 min after the initiation of OLV. Results: The PaO2 value in 60% CPAP group vs. 100% CPAP group at each measurement were as follows: RA (mean [standard deviation: SD], 89.7 [8.2] mmHg vs. 85.8 [11.9] mmHg);TLV (277.9 [52.9] mmHg vs. 269.2 [44.0] mmHg);T5 (191.4 [67.9] mmHg vs. 192.3 [66.0] mmHg);T15 (143.2 [67.3] mmHg vs. 154.7 [60.8] mmHg) and T30 (95.6 [32.0] mmHg vs. 112.5 [36.5] mmHg), respectively. Among the five measurement points, T30 was the only time point at which the 100% CPAP group showed a significantly greater PaO2 value than the 60% CPAP group (p = 0.0495). The SaO2 at T30 in the 100% CPAP group (97.4 [2.0]%) was also significantly greater than that in the 60% CPAP group (96.3 [2.2]%, p = 0.039). No differences were found between the groups regarding changes to the overall PaO2 values (p = 0.44) and SaO2 values (p = 0.23) during the study period. Conclusions: Oxygenation could be safely maintained in relatively healthy patients with 60% O2 OLV and 60% O2 CPAP. The application of 60% O2 CPAP during OLV for patients who are not suited to exposure to high F1O2 may be an alternative form of respiratory management.