Obstructive Left Colon Cancer Research Articles

Subtotal and Total Colectomy as a One-Stage Surgical Treatment for Malignant Left-Sided Colonic Obstruction

Abstract Aim: We conducted this retrospective study in order to evaluate the short- and long-term results of Subtotal/Total Colectomy (STC/TC) and primary anastomosis for the treatment of occlusive left colon cancer. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from the medical records from general surgery clinic in January 2016 to June 2022 period. The study included patients diagnosed with acute colonic occlusion produced by tumor located from the splenic flexure to the rectosigmoid junction. Results: During the study period, 40 patients who underwent STC/TC and primary anastomosis were included in the study. According to the Clavien-Dindo grades, major complication rate was 17.5%. Seven patients (17.5%) had synchronous adenocarcinoma. Adenoma was detected in 11 of 40 patients, and 18.1% of them were reported as high-grade dysplasia. Besides, incidental low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm was reported in one patient. Ischemia and perforation of proximal colon was found in 28 cases (70%). No patient had anastomotic leak. After one year of surgery, the average defecation was two stools per day. Three-year OS was 92.3% in stage II and 68.7% in stage III. There was no survival more than three years in stage IV patients. The three-year overall disease- free survival was 90.6%. Conclusion: Treatment of obstructive left colon cancer using STC/TC and primary anastomosis is a confident method resulting in a good bowel function. The method allows the resection of synchronous tumors. Besides, it removes the proximal colon with ischemic lesions, serosal tears and filled with stool.

Colonic Resection, Stoma, or Self-expanding Metal Stents for Obstructive Left Colon Cancer: the CROSCO-1 study protocol.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. There are several causes of a mechanical left bowel obstructive but CRC accounts for approximately 50% of cases and in 10-30% of whom it is the presenting syndrome. In most cases, the left colon is involved. At present, the range of therapeutic alternatives in the management of obstructive left CRC in emergency conditions (primary resection vs. staged resection with applied self-expanding metallic stents) is broad, whereas internationally validated clinical recommendations in each condition are still lacking. This enormous variability affects the scientific evidence on both the immediate and long-term surgical and oncological outcomes. CROSCO-1 (Colonic Resection, Stoma or Self-expanding Metal Stents for Obstructive Left Colon Cancer) study is a national, multi-center, prospective observational study intending to compare the clinical results of all these therapeutic regimens in a cohort of patients treated for obstructive left-sided CRC. The primary aim of the CROSCO-1 study is the 1-year stoma rate of patients undergoing primary emergency surgical resection (Hartmann procedure or primary resection and anastomosis) compared with patients undergoing staged resection. Secondary outcomes are 30-day and 90-day major morbidity and mortality, 1-year quality of life and the timing of chemotherapy initiation in the two groups. Future CROSCO studies will follow in which, instead, we will evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of the two treatment strategies. The results of a large prospective cohort study which will analyze what really happens in the common clinical practice of managing patients with obstructive left CRC will have the aim of understanding which is the best strategy in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. Indeed, the CROSCO-1 study will analyze the early surgical outcomes for patients with obstructed left CRC. Future CROSCO studies will follow in which, instead, we will evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of the two treatment strategies.

Short- and long-term outcomes of subtotal/total colectomy in the management of obstructive left colon cancer.

Surgical management of obstructive left colon cancer (OLCC) is still a matter of debate. The classic Hartmann procedure (HP) has a disadvantage that requires a second major operation. Subtotal colectomy/total abdominal colectomy (STC/TC) with ileosigmoid or ileorectal anastomosis is proposed as an alternative procedure to avoid stoma and anastomotic leakage. However, doubts about morbidity and functional outcome and lack of long-term outcomes have made surgeons hesitate to perform this procedure. Therefore, this trial was designed to provide data for morbidity, functional outcomes, and long-term outcomes of STC/TC. This study retrospectively analyzed consecutive cases of OLCC that were treated by STC/TC between January 2000 and November 2020 at a single tertiary referral center. Perioperative outcomes and long-term outcomes of STC/TC were analyzed. Twenty-five descending colon cancer (45.5%) and 30 sigmoid colon cancer cases (54.5%) were enrolled in this study. Postoperative complications occurred in 12 patients. The majority complication was postoperative ileus (10 of 12). Anastomotic leakage and perioperative mortality were not observed. At 6 to 12 weeks after the surgery, the median frequency of defecation was twice per day (interquartile range, 1-3 times per day). Eight patients (14.5%) required medication during this period, but only 3 of 8 patients required medication after 1 year. The 3-year disease-free survival was 72.7% and 3-year overall survival was 86.7%. The risk of anastomotic leakage is low after STC/TC. Functional and long-term outcomes are also acceptable. Therefore, STC/TC for OLCC is a safe, 1-stage procedure that does not require diverting stoma.

The surgical management of large bowel obstruction in patients with left colon and rectal cancer – a retrospective study

The optimal surgical attitude towards obstructed left colon and upper rectal cancer remains elusive, one of the main postoperative endpoints being to avoid the most dreaded complication of this type of procedures - the anastomotic leakage. Material and methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients with left colon and rectal cancer admitted and having emergency surgery performed in the surgical departments of the University County Hospital of Craiova, Romania, between 2001 and 2018. The timeline analysis showed an increasing interest for single-stage resection and anastomosis in the second decade (2011-2018) compared to the first decade of the study (28% vs. 11.2%). Results: The incidence of anastomotic leak for these types of procedures remained higher than for the two-stage procedure (15% vs. 4.8%), similar to the overall postoperative morbidity (30.3% vs. 20%) and mortality (3% vs. 1.1%). Postoperative morbidity and anastomotic leak rate were statistically higher in the single stage procedure group when compared with the two-stage procedure (p <0.05). Conclusions: Deciding between single-stage resection with anastomosis and a two-stage procedure requires a careful patient selection due to the relatively high risk of anastomotic leak in this specific category of patients.

A meta-analysis of colonic stenting in obstructive left colon cancer

Background/Introduction: Colonic self-expanding metallic stents have been long been employed for various indications for malignant large bowel obstruction. However, there remains controversy in the impact of perforation rates and interval between stenting and surgery.

Comparison of colonic stents, stomas and resection for obstructive left colon cancer: a meta-analysis.

Emergency surgery (ES) is the standard-of-care for left-sided obstructing colon cancer, with self-expanding metallic stents (SEMSs) and diverting colostomies (DCs) being alternative approaches. The aim of this study was to review the short- and long-term outcomes of SEMS versus ES or DC. Embase and Medline were searched for articles comparing SEMS versus ES or DC. Primary outcomes were survival and recurrence rates. Secondary outcomes were peri- and postoperative outcomes. SEMS-specific outcomes include success and complication rates. Pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were estimated with DerSimonian and Laird random effects used to account for heterogeneity. Thirty-three studies were included, involving 15,224 patients in 8 randomized controlled trials and 25 observational studies. There were high technical and clinical success rates for SEMS, with low rates of complications. Our meta-analysis revealed increased odds of laparoscopic surgery and anastomosis, and decreased stoma creation with SEMS compared to ES. SEMS led to fewer complications, including anastomotic leak, wound infection, ileus, myocardial infarction, and improved 90-day in-hospital mortality. There were no significant differences in 3- and 5-year overall, cancer-specific and disease-free survival. SEMS, compared to DC, led to decreased rates of stoma creation, higher rates of ileus and reoperation, and led to longer hospital stay. SEMS leads to better short-term outcomes but confers no survival advantage over ES. It is unclear whether SEMS has better short-term outcomes compared to DC. There is a lack of randomized trials with long-term outcomes for SEMS versus DC, hence results should be interpreted with caution.

Colon sparing resection versus extended colectomy for left-sided obstructing colon cancer with caecal ischaemia or perforation: a nationwide study from the French Surgical Association.

It is not known whether patients with obstructive left colon cancer (OLCC) with caecal ischaemia or diastatic perforation (defined as a blowout of the caecal wall related to colonic overdistension) should undergo a (sub)total colectomy (STC) or an ileo-caecal resection with double-barrelled ileo-colostomy. We aimed to compare the results of these two strategies. From 2000 to 2015, 1220 patients with OLCC underwent surgery by clinicians who were members of the French Surgical Association. Of these cases, 201 (16%) were found to have caecal ischaemia or diastatic perforation intra-operatively: 174 patients (87%) underwent a STC (extended colectomy group) and 27 (13%) an ileo-caecal resection with double-end stoma (colon-sparing group). Outcomes were compared retrospectively. In the extended colectomy group, 95 patients (55%) had primary anastomosis and 79 (45%) had a STC with an end ileostomy. In the colon-sparing group, 10 patients (37%) had simultaneous resection of their primary tumour with segmental colectomy and an anastomosis which was protected by a double-barrelled ileo-colostomy. The demographic data for the two groups were comparable. Median operative time was longer in the STC group (P=0.0044). There was a decrease in postoperative mortality (7% vs 12%, P=0.75) and overall morbidity (56% vs 67%, P=0.37) including surgical (30% vs 40%, P=0.29) and severe complications (17% vs 27%, P=0.29) in the colon-sparing group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance. Cumulative morbidity included all surgical stages and the rate of permanent stoma was 66% and 37%, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups. Overall survival and disease-free survival were similar between the two groups. The colon-sparing strategy may represent a valid and safe alternative to STC in OLCC patients with caecal ischaemia or diastatic perforation.

Obstructive left side colon cancer: time for a tailored operative approach?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) obstruction is frequent but doubts remain on the best treatment. The aim of this study is to analyze the different operative approach used for CRC treatment and evaluate the outcomes for the different cases. Patients were collected from January 2014 to December 2019 and divided in four groups: two "P" groups, namely the Hartmann's procedure (PH) group and the primary anastomosis (PA) group, and two "S" groups, namely the deviating stoma (SD) group and the self-expanding metallic stent (SS) group. The main endpoints were the quality of life and the oncologic safety. One hundred and eight patients were enrolled. The mean follow-up time was 39 months. The stomas were performed less frequently in SS but lasted more in that group. Only 45% underwent reversal surgery. Cumulative operating time was greater in S versus P groups. The rate of major complications was similar. PA had greater overall survival and disease-free survival rates than PH. The various options of treatment should have different indications: primary anastomosis in stable patients, Hartmann in critical cases, SEMS for palliative intent and stoma when neo-adjuvant therapy is needed.

Analysis of the effect of emergency primary resection and anastomosis in the treatment of obstructive left hemicolon cancer and the value of preventing reoperation

Objective To study and evaluate the clinical effect of emergency primary resection and anastomosis in the treatment of obstructive left hemicolon carcinoma and the value of preventing reoperation. Methods From February 1st 2013 to February 1st 2018, a total of 46 patients with obstructive left hemicolon cancer underwent surgical treatment were selected in the First People's Hospital of Jinzhong.According to the random digital table method, 46 patients with obstructive left colon cancer were randomly divided into two groups, with 23 patients in each group.The control group received stage colon resection and anastomosis, and the observation group received stage I resection and anastomosis.The operative condition, postoperative recovery, anastomotic leakage, therapeutic effect of intestinal obstruction, serum inflammatory cytokines and reoperation rate were compared between the two groups. Results There were no statistically significant differences in the number of lymph nodes dissection, the amount of blood lost during operation and time of operation (all P>0.05). The recovery time of anal exhaust[(2.34 ±0.86)d], the removal time of drainage tube[(4.36±1.52)d], the active time of getting out of bed [(3.81±1.17)d], the hospitalization time[(12.05 ±2.73)d] in the observation group were significantly shorter than those in the control group[(3.29±1.05)d, (6.17±1.84)d, (5.24±1.43)d, (15.76±3.69)d](t=3.357, 3.637, 3.712, 3.876, all P 0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference in the total effective rate of intestinal obstruction treatment between the two groups (P>0.05). The levels of serum inflammatory cytokines such as C-reactive protein, interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha in the two groups were significantly lower than those before operation(all P 0.05). The rates of reoperation in the observation group and control group were 8.70% and 4.35%, respectively, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Stage I resection and anastomosis can be used to treat intestinal obstruction effectively, dissect lymph nodes, suppress inflammatory reaction, it is safe and reliable, and do not increase the risk of reoperation.Compared with stage I resection and anastomosis, it has more advantages in accelerating postoperative recovery, which is beneficial to reduce the cost of treatment and reduce the economic burden of patients. Key words: Intestinal obstruction; Colonic neoplasms; Gastroenterostomy; Anastomotic leak; Emergency treatment; Treatment outcome

Stent Performance in Obstructive Left Colon Cancer. Unicentric and Cross-sectional Study

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy, safety and clinical and oncological results of colonic stents in the initial therapeutic strategy of obstructive left colon cancer. MethodsDescriptive and ambispective study (2008–2018) of patients with clinical and radiological diagnosis of neoplastic obstruction of the left colon in whom a colonic stent was indicated, analyzing the following groups: palliative stent, stent as bridge to surgery and urgent surgery in case of stent failure or complications. ResultsThe study included 208 patients. The technical and clinical success rates were 82.2% and 74.5%, respectively, with associated perforation in 4.3% of the sample. In 32.2%, the stent was placed as bridge to surgery, while 28.4% required urgent surgical intervention. The stent was placed with palliative intent in 39.4%. The proportion of laparoscopic surgery, oncological resection, primary anastomosis and lymph nodes resected were higher in patients undergoing elective surgery than in urgent surgery, with shorter postoperative stay and less severe postoperative morbidity and mortality. Stage II–III patients with oncological tumor resection who underwent elective surgery had increased survival compared to those who underwent urgent surgery (P = .001). ConclusionsInitial treatment of neoplastic obstruction of the left colon with a stent is an effective strategy in elective surgery and avoids permanent colostomy in palliative patients, although complications or stent failure lead to urgent surgery in almost one-third of patients.

Rendimiento del stent en el manejo de la obstrucción intestinal por cáncer de colon izquierdo. Estudio ambispectivo y unicéntrico

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy, safety and clinical and oncological results of colonic stents in the initial therapeutic strategy of obstructive left colon cancer. MethodsDescriptive and ambispective study (2008-2018) of patients with clinical and radiological diagnosis of neoplastic obstruction of the left colon in whom a colonic stent was indicated, analyzing the following groups: palliative stent, stent as bridge to surgery and urgent surgery in case of stent failure or complications. ResultsThe study included 208 patients. The technical and clinical success rates were 82.2% and 74.5%, respectively, with associated perforation in 4.3% of the sample. In 32.2%, the stent was placed as bridge to surgery, while 28.4% required urgent surgical intervention. The stent was placed with palliative intent in 39.4%. The proportion of laparoscopic surgery, oncological resection, primary anastomosis and lymph nodes resected were higher in patients undergoing elective surgery than in urgent surgery, with shorter postoperative stay and less severe postoperative morbidity and mortality. Stage II-III patients with oncological tumor resection who underwent elective surgery had increased survival compared to those who underwent urgent surgery (P=0.001). ConclusionsInitial treatment of neoplastic obstruction of the left colon with a stent is an effective strategy in elective surgery and avoids permanent colostomy in palliative patients, although complications or stent failure lead to urgent surgery in almost one-third of patients.

Surgical management of obstructive left colon cancer at a national level: Results of a multicentre study of the French Surgical Association in 1500 patients.

Surgical management of obstructive left colon cancer (OLCC) is controversial. The objective is to report on postoperative and oncological outcomes of the different surgical options in patients operated on for OLCC. From 2000-2015, 1500 patients were treated for OLCC in centers members of the French Surgical Association. Colonic stent (n=271), supportive care (n=5), palliative derivation (n=4) were excluded. Among 1220 remaining patients, 456 had primary diverting colostomy (PDC), 329 a segmental colectomy (SC), 246 a Hartmann's procedure (HP) and 189 a subtotal colectomy (STC) as first-stage surgery. Perioperative data and oncological outcomes were compared retrospectively. There was no difference between the 4 groups regarding gender, age, BMI and comorbidities. Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 4-27% (PDC), 6-47% (SC), 9-55% (HP), 13-60% (STC), respectively (P=0.005). Among the 431 living patients after PDC, 321 (70%) patients had their primary tumour removed. Cumulative mortality and morbidity favoured PDC (7-39%) and SC (6-40%) compared to HP (1-47%) and STC (13-50%) (P=0.04). At the end of follow-up definitive stoma rates were 39% (HP), 24% (PDC), 10% (SC), and 8% (STC) (P<0.0001). Five-year overall and disease-free survival was: SC (67-55%), PDC (54-48%), HP (54-37%) and STC (48-49%). After multivariate analysis, SC and PDC were associated with better prognosis compared to HP and STC. In OLCC, SC and PDC are the two preferred options in patients with good medical conditions. For patients with severe comorbidities PDC should be recommended, reserving HP and STC for patients with colonic ischaemia or perforation complicating malignant obstruction.

What is the Best Option Between Primary Diverting Stoma or Endoscopic Stent as a Bridge to Surgery with a Curative Intent for Obstructed Left Colon Cancer? Results from a Propensity Score Analysis of the French Surgical Association Multicenter Cohort of 518 Patients.

Endoscopic stent (ES) as a bridge to surgery in obstructed left colon cancer (OLCC) is controversial. Our goal was to compare the operative and oncological results of primary diverting colostomy (PDC) and ES for the curative treatment of OLCC. Between 2000 and 2015, patients who underwent PDC or ES in a curative intent for OLCC at member centers of the French Surgical Association were included. Patients with unresectable tumors and/or synchronous metastases were excluded. Comparisons between the two groups were performed after ponderation with propensity score for: demographic and tumor characteristics, operative, and oncological results. A total of 518 patients were included: PDC (n = 327); ES (n = 191). The demographic characteristics were similar between the groups. ES failed in 23% of the patients (11% perforation). Cumulative tumor resection rates were 80% and 86% after PDC and ES, respectively (p = 0.049). The rates of primary anastomosis were 57% in the PDC group and 40% in the ES group (p < 0.0001). The permanent stoma rates were similar between the two groups (29% vs. 28%, p = 0.0586). Cumulative overall, surgical, and medical complications were significantly higher in PDC group. The resected tumors were significantly smaller and less frequently perforated and metastatic in the PDC group. The median overall survival was significantly higher after PDC (123.6 vs. 58.5months, p = 0.046), whereas the median disease-free survival was similar between the two groups (54.1 vs. 53.6months, p = 0.646). Although endoscopic stenting is associated with better surgical outcomes than diverting stoma, it may negatively impact histological features and overall survival.

Resultados del uso de stent metálico autoexpandible como terapia puente en cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo

Objetive: To analyze the results of the use of stent as bridge therapy for surgery in obstructive left colon cancer in our center. Material and Method: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with obstructive left colon cancer undergoing metallic stenting as a bridge therapy for definitive surgery between January 2008 and December 2016. Demographic data, procedural success, complications, surgical approach, pathological anatomy and follow-up were analyzed. Results: Ten patients. The procedure was technically and clinically successful in all 10 patients, with no complications in any of them. All patients went to resective surgery, achieving primary anastomosis in 9 of them. In 3 of them, a laparoscopic approach was performed. A median of lymph nodes of 41 it was obtained in the surgical specimen. With a median follow-up of 34 months, 2 presented distant recurrence, which were patients diagnosed at a more advanced stage of their disease. Discussion: The stent as bridge therapy to an elective surgery, allows to obtain a low rate of colostomies, low morbidity, offer a laparoscopic surgery and an optimal cancer surgery. Conclusion: The use of the stent as a bridge therapy in obstructive left colon cancer appears as a good alternative to solve this pathology in patients of greater surgical risk.

The long-term recurrence rate and survival of obstructive left-sided colon cancer patients: a stent as a bridge to surgery.

a colonic stent as a bridge to elective surgery for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction is an alternative to the classical treatment. The aim of our study was to evaluate the recurrence rate as well as the morbidity and mortality of this treatment. patients admitted to the Emergency Department with left-sided malignant colonic obstruction between June 2006 and January 2014 were analyzed in a retrospective observational study. Patients who underwent self-expanding metallic stent placement via endoscopy as a bridge to surgery were included. The observation period was performed until May 2017. fifty-three patients were treated with a colonic stent as a bridge to surgery; nine patients died during the postoperative period. The deceased patients were more frequently male (100% in the deceased vs 62% in the non-deceased, p = 0.02), with a more advanced age (81.4 ± 5.1 vs 71.6 ± 10.8, p < 0.001), lower hemoglobin levels on admission (12.9 vs 13.6 p < 0.001), a greater number of leukocytes (12,918 vs 9,437, p < 0.001) and greater coagulopathy (INR 1.6 vs 1, p < 0.001). Eight patients had a distant relapse with a median disease-free survival of 19.1 months. The variables were compared according to the appearance of distant disease and the mean age was lower in patients with a recurrence (65.9 ± 11.3 vs 74.9 ± 9.9, p < 0.001). the results of the use of a stent as a bridge to curative surgery in patients with obstructive left colon cancer in our hospital is comparable to previous studies.

Self-Expanding Metallic Stent as a Bridge to Surgery in the Treatment of Left Colon Cancer Obstruction: Cost–Benefit Analysis and Oncologic Results

IntroductionThe use of a self-expanding metallic stent as a bridge to surgery in acute malignant left colonic obstruction has been suggested as an alternative treatment to emergency surgery. The aim of the present study was to compare the morbi-mortality, cost–benefit and long-term oncological outcomes of both therapeutic options. MethodsThis is a prospective, comparative, controlled, non-randomized study (2005–2010) performed in a specialized unit. The study included 82 patients with left colon cancer obstruction treated by stent as a bridge to surgery (n=27) or emergency surgery (n=55) operated with local curative intention. The main outcome measures (postoperative morbi-mortaliy, cost–benefit, stoma rate and long-term oncological outcomes) were compared based on an “intention-to-treat” analysis. ResultsThere were no significant statistical differences between the two groups in terms of preoperative data and tumor characteristics. The technically successful stenting rate was 88.9% (11.1% perforation during stent placement) and clinical success was 81.4%. No difference was observed in postoperative morbi-mortality rates. The primary anastomosis rate was higher in the bridge to surgery group compared to the emergency surgery group (77.8% vs 56.4%; P=.05). The mean costs in the emergency surgery group resulted to be €1391.9 more expensive per patient than in the bridge to surgery group. There was no significant statistical difference in oncological long-term outcomes. ConclusionsThe use of self-expanding metallic stents as a bridge to surgery is a safe option in the urgent treatment of obstructive left colon cancer, with similar short and long-term results compared to direct surgery, inferior mean costs and a higher rate of primary anastomosis.

Stents metálicos autoexpandibles como puente a la cirugía en el tratamiento del cáncer de colon izquierdo en oclusión. Análisis coste-beneficio y resultados oncológicos

IntroductionThe use of a self-expanding metallic stent as a bridge to surgery in acute malignant left colonic obstruction has been suggested as an alternative treatment to emergency surgery. The aim of the present study was to compare the morbi-mortality, cost-benefit and long-term oncological outcomes of both therapeutic options. MethodsThis is a prospective, comparative, controlled, non-randomized study (2005-2010) performed in a specialized unit. The study included 82 patients with left colon cancer obstruction treated by stent as a bridge to surgery (n=27) or emergency surgery (n=55) operated with local curative intention. The main outcome measures (postoperative morbi-mortaliy, cost-benefit, stoma rate and long-term oncological outcomes) were compared based on an “intention-to-treat” analysis. ResultsThere were no significant statistical differences between the two groups in terms of preoperative data and tumor characteristics. The technically successful stenting rate was 88.9% (11.1% perforation during stent placement) and clinical success was 81.4%. No difference was observed in postoperative morbi-mortality rates. The primary anastomosis rate was higher in the bridge to surgery group compared to the emergency surgery group (77.8% vs. 56.4%; P=.05). The mean costs in the emergency surgery group resulted to be €1,391.9 more expensive per patient than in the bridge to surgery group. There was no significant statistical difference in oncological long-term outcomes. ConclusionsThe use of self-expanding metalllic stents as a bridge to surgery is a safe option in the urgent treatment of obstructive left colon cancer, with similar short and long-term results compared to direct surgery, inferior mean costs and a higher rate of primary anastomosis.

Reviewing the Management of Obstructive Left Colon Cancer: Assessing the Feasibility of the One-stage Resection and Anastomosis After Intraoperative Colonic Irrigation

BackgroundThe management of obstructive left colon cancer (OLCC) remains debatable with the single-stage procedure of primary colonic anastomosis after cancer resection and on-table intracolonic lavage now being supported. Patients and MethodsPatients with acute OLCC who were admitted between January 2008 and January 2015 were distributed into 5 different groups. Group ICI underwent emergency laparotomy for primary anastomosis following colonic resection and intraoperative colonic lavage; Group HP underwent emergency Hartmann's Procedure; Group CON consisted of patients treated by conservative management with subsequent elective open cancer resection; Group COL were colostomy patients; and Group INT consisted of patients who had interventional radiology followed by open elective colon cancer resection. The demographics of the patients and comorbidity, intraoperative data, and postoperative data were collected, with P < .05 as significant. ResultsThere were 4 deaths in 138 cases (2.90%). There was only 1 patient who had anastomotic leakage (5.56%) in Group ICI, compared with none in Group HP and Group COL, 1 case in Group INT (7.69%), and 2 cases in Group CON (6.06%) (P > .05). Group INT and Group CON, when compared to the three surgical groups, Groups ICI, Group COL, and Group HP, individually, were statistically significant for the duration of surgery (P < .05). ConclusionsPrimary anastomosis following colonic resection after irrigation can be safely performed in selected patients, with the necessary surgical expertise, with no increased risk in mortality, anastomotic leakage, and other postoperative complications.

Outcome comparison between bridge to surgery stenting and emergency surgery in stage II, III obstructive left colon cancer: A multicenter retrospective study.

747 Background: A SEMS (Self Expandable Metallic Stents) has been widely used for obstructive colorectal cancer as a bridge to surgery to avoid emergency surgery. However, it may increase the tumor spillage so that the long-term survival would be compromised. The aim of our study was to compare the short- and long-term outcome of surgery after stent insertion with those of emergency surgery alone for the left colon malignant obstruction patients. Methods: The medical records of patients who received curative resection due to obstructive primary left colon cancer and diagnosed to stage II or III from January 2004 to December 2010 in six hospitals affiliated to the Catholic Medical Center. Overall survival and disease free survival were compared between the SEMS (n = 158) and emergency surgery (n = 56) group. Short-term outcome was also compared. Factors affecting disease-free survival in the SEMS group were analyzed using the cox proportional hazards model. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between two groups by pathologic stage. Intra-operative complication (0.0% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.004), re-operation (1.3% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.042), post-operative hospital stay (11.2 ± 6.5 days vs. 14.6 ± 8.9 days, p = 0.010) and conversion rate (3.5% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.028) showed short-term advantages of the SEMS. 5-year DFS in stage II patients was 87.2% for the SMES group, 73.5% for the ES group (p = 0.117). Among stage III patients, 5-year DFS was 55.8% for the SEMS group and 72.0% for the ES group (p = 0.129). 5-year OS of the SEMS group was 90.2%, and of the ES group was 92.4% in stage II patients (p = 0.694). 5-year OS in the SEMS group was 82.8%, and the ES group 73.0% in stage III patients (p = 0.577). For the stage III SEMS patients, hospital of procedure (p = 0.041) and operation date (HR 0.400, 95% C.I 0.176-0.905, p = 0.028) were independent factors on disease free survival. Conclusions: If there’s an intervention team with sufficient experience for the SEMS and a sufficient preparation for emergency surgery, the SEMS is a good therapeutic option for malignant obstruction in left colon cancer.

Obstructive Left Colon Cancer Should Be Managed by Using a Subtotal Colectomy Instead of Colonic Stenting.

PurposeThis study compared a subtotal colectomy to self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) insertion as a bridge to surgery for patients with left colon-cancer obstruction.MethodsNinety-four consecutive patients with left colon-cancer obstruction underwent an emergency subtotal colectomy or elective SEMS insertion between January 2007 and August 2014. Using prospectively collected data, we performed a retrospective comparative analysis on an intention-to-treat basis.ResultsA subtotal colectomy and SEMS insertion were attempted in 24 and 70 patients, respectively. SEMS insertion technically failed in 5 patients (7.1%). The mean age and rate of obstruction in the descending colon were higher in the subtotal colectomy group than the SEMS group. Sex, underlying disease, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and pathological stage showed no statistical difference. Laparoscopic surgery was performed more frequently in patients in the SEMS group (62 of 70, 88.6%) than in patients in the subtotal colectomy group (4 of 24, 16.7%). The overall rate of postoperative morbidity was higher in the SEMS group. No Clavien-Dindo grade III or IV complications occurred in the subtotal colectomy group, but 2 patients (2.9%) died from septic complications in the SEMS group. One patient (4.2%) in the subtotal colectomy group had synchronous cancer. The total hospital stay was shorter in the subtotal colectomy group. The median number of bowel movements in the subtotal colectomy group was twice per day at postoperative 3–6 months.ConclusionA subtotal colectomy for patients with obstructive left-colon cancer is a clinically and oncologically safer, 1-stage, surgical strategy compared to SEMS insertion as a bridge to surgery.