Short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes of self-expandable metallic stent compared with tube decompression for obstructive colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Gi Won Ha, Min Ro Lee
{"title":"Short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes of self-expandable metallic stent compared with tube decompression for obstructive colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Gi Won Ha, Min Ro Lee","doi":"10.4174/astr.2024.106.2.93","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Patients with obstructive colorectal cancer managed by emergency surgery show high morbidity, mortality, and stoma formation rates. Decompression modalities, including the self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) and tube drainage (TD), have been used to improve surgical outcomes. However, there have been limited studies comparing the 2 modalities. We performed a meta-analysis on short- and long-term outcomes between SEMS and TD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. Data were pooled, and the overall effect size was calculated using random effect models. Outcome measures were perioperative short-term and 3-year survival outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 20 nonrandomized studies that examined 2,047 patients in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed SEMS had better short-term outcomes in clinical success rate, decompression-related complications, laparoscopic surgery rate, stoma formation rate, and postoperative complication rate with a relative risk (RR) of 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.54; I<sup>2</sup> = 20%), 0.32 (95% CI, 0.20-0.50; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%), 0.47 (95% CI, 0.34-0.66; I<sup>2</sup> = 87%), 0.34 (95% CI, 0.24-0.49; I<sup>2</sup> = 52%), and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.89, I<sup>2</sup> = 28%), respectively. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in 3-year overall survival (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.77-1.27; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the long-term oncologic impact of SEMS is still unclear compared with TD, the results of this meta-analysis may suggest that SEMS insertion can be performed more successfully and safely and may have benefits for short-term perioperative outcomes compared with TD. Further studies are warranted to provide more definitive survival results.</p>","PeriodicalId":8071,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10838655/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2024.106.2.93","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Patients with obstructive colorectal cancer managed by emergency surgery show high morbidity, mortality, and stoma formation rates. Decompression modalities, including the self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) and tube drainage (TD), have been used to improve surgical outcomes. However, there have been limited studies comparing the 2 modalities. We performed a meta-analysis on short- and long-term outcomes between SEMS and TD.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. Data were pooled, and the overall effect size was calculated using random effect models. Outcome measures were perioperative short-term and 3-year survival outcomes.

Results: We included 20 nonrandomized studies that examined 2,047 patients in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed SEMS had better short-term outcomes in clinical success rate, decompression-related complications, laparoscopic surgery rate, stoma formation rate, and postoperative complication rate with a relative risk (RR) of 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.54; I2 = 20%), 0.32 (95% CI, 0.20-0.50; I2 = 0%), 0.47 (95% CI, 0.34-0.66; I2 = 87%), 0.34 (95% CI, 0.24-0.49; I2 = 52%), and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.89, I2 = 28%), respectively. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in 3-year overall survival (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.77-1.27; I2 = 0%).

Conclusion: Although the long-term oncologic impact of SEMS is still unclear compared with TD, the results of this meta-analysis may suggest that SEMS insertion can be performed more successfully and safely and may have benefits for short-term perioperative outcomes compared with TD. Further studies are warranted to provide more definitive survival results.

自膨胀金属支架与管道减压术治疗梗阻性结直肠癌的短期和长期肿瘤学疗效比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。
目的:通过急诊手术治疗的梗阻性结直肠癌患者的发病率、死亡率和造口形成率都很高。包括自膨胀金属支架(SEMS)和管道引流(TD)在内的减压方式已被用于改善手术效果。然而,对这两种方式进行比较的研究还很有限。我们对 SEMS 和 TD 的短期和长期疗效进行了荟萃分析:方法:检索了 PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library 和 Google Scholar。对数据进行汇总,并使用随机效应模型计算总体效应大小。结果指标为围手术期短期和3年生存结果:我们在荟萃分析中纳入了 20 项非随机研究,共研究了 2047 名患者。荟萃分析表明,SEMS 在临床成功率、减压相关并发症、腹腔镜手术率、造口形成率和术后并发症发生率方面具有更好的短期疗效,相对风险(RR)为 0.36(95% 置信区间 [CI],0.24-0.54;I2 = 20%)、0.32(95% CI,0.20-0.50;I2 = 0%)、0.47(95% CI,0.34-0.66;I2 = 87%)、0.34(95% CI,0.24-0.49;I2 = 52%)和 0.70(95% CI,0.54-0.89,I2 = 28%)。然而,两组患者的3年总生存率无明显差异(RR,0.99;95% CI,0.77-1.27;I2 = 0%):尽管与TD相比,SEMS的长期肿瘤学影响尚不明确,但这项荟萃分析的结果可能表明,与TD相比,SEMS植入术可以更成功、更安全地进行,并可能对短期围术期结果有利。要提供更确切的生存结果,还需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Manuscripts to the Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research (Ann Surg Treat Res) should be written in English according to the instructions for authors. If the details are not described below, the style should follow the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publications available at International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) website (http://www.icmje.org).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信