Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_917_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
32 Мб
Скачать
420
G. Melich et al.
This chapter will review indications and contraindications for colonic stents placement in large-bowel obstruction, based on available data regarding technical success/failure, risk for early and delayed perforation, and oncologic outcomes rela­tive to emergency surgery based on recurrence rates and 5-year survival rates.
Indications forSEMS
While rst-line use of SEMS for palliation of obstructing left-sided colon cancer in the face of signicant comorbidity is widely accepted [1013], its role in colonic stent decompression as a bridge to elective surgery (SBTS) remains controversial. This is reected by conicting international guidelines that are summarized in Table27.1.
The 2013 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines state colonic SEMS may also be used as “bridge to surgery” for patients with malig­nant obstruction who are surgical candidates [10]. These were followed by the 2014 update of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines [11]. Heavily inuenced by outcomes from the halted STENT-In 2 trial [14], the largest multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) published at the time, the guidelines strongly recommended against colonic SEMS placement as a standard treatment for symptomatic left-sided malignant obstruction. Nonetheless, several critics of the STENT-In 2 study questioned the SEMS skills and experience of some of the centers, due to the low clinical and endoscopic success rate reported [15]. Though not a recommended rst-line treatment for all patients with potentially cur­able left-sided obstructing colon cancer, the ESGE still conceded that SEMS place­ment may be considered as an alternative to emergency surgery in those who have an increased risk of postoperative mortality, e.g., ASA>III and/or age>70years (weak recommendation, low quality evidence) [11].
More recent guidelines are no less at odds. In 2016, the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) conditionally recommended colonic stenting (if available) as the initial therapy for malignant colonic obstruction after nding stent use being associated with decreased mortality and decreased rates for emergency procedures, including reoperations [11], based on a meta-analysis of results from six RCTs [1620]. These conclusions are supported by ndings from the subse­quent 2016 ESCO trial, the largest RCT published to date [21]. Here the ndings indicate that the two treatment strategies (stent bridge to elective surgery and emer­gency surgery) are equivalent. No difference in oncologic outcome was found at a median follow-up of 36months. The signicantly lower stoma rate noted in the SBTS group argues in favor of the stent bridge to elective surgery procedure when performed in expert hands.
The 2017 consensus conference of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) states SEMS as a bridge to elective surgery offers a better short-term out­come than direct emergency surgery with signicantly lower stoma rates [21, 22]. However, SEMS could not with certainty be recommended as the treatment of choice in the management of obstructing left-sided colon cancer, because evidence
27 Large Bowel Obstruction: When Should Colon Stenting BeConsidered…
Table 27.1 Main recommendations on the use of stents of the most recent international
guidelines
Prophylactic colonic stent placement Stent bridge to elective surgery
ASGE, 2013
ESGE, 2014
EAST, 2016
WSES, 2017
Data from Refs. [10, 11, 16-20, 21-26] ASGE American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, ESGE European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EAST Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, WSES World Society of Emergency Surgery, SEMS self-expanding metal stents, OLCC obstructing left colon carcinoma, BTS bridge to elective surgery
Not recommended. Colonic stenting should be reserved for patients with clinical symptoms and imaging evidence of malignant large-bowel obstruction, without signs of perforation
“Colonic SEMS may also be used as a ‘bridge to surgery’ for patients with malignant obstruction who are surgical candidates” Not recommended, unless increased risk of postoperative mortality, i.e., American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status RIII and/or age >70 years (weak recommendation, low quality evidence)
We conditionally recommend endoscopic, colonic stenting (if available) as the initial therapy for colonic obstruction
SEMS as bridge to elective surgery offers a better short-term outcome than direct emergency surgery. The complications are comparable, but the stoma rate is signicantly smaller. Long­term outcomes appear comparable, but evidence remains suboptimal; further studies are necessary. For these reasons, SEMS as BTS cannot be considered the treatment of choice in the management of OLCC, while it may represent a valid option in selected cases and in tertiary referral hospitals
Stent as palliation of malignant colonic obstruction
SEMS placement is recommended as the preferred treatment for palliation of malignant colonic obstruction except in patients treated or considered for treatment with antiangiogenic drugs (e.g., bevacizumab)
In facilities with capability for stent placement, SEMS should be preferred to colostomy for palliation of OLCC since it is associated with similar mortality/ morbidity rates and shorter hospital stay. Alternative treatments to SEMS should be considered in patients eligible to a bevacizumab­based therapy. Involvement of the oncologist in the decision is strongly recommended
421
remained suboptimal for long-term outcomes [23]. Further studies were deemed necessary to alleviate concerns that SEMS insertion may promote tumor progres­sion and metastasis. A 2015 meta-analysis by Erichsen and coauthors reports a com­parable 5-year survival of 49% among patients with SEMS vs 40% who underwent urgent resection. However, the same study also reports a 5-year recurrence risk of
422
39% after SEMS placement compared with 30% after urgent resection [24]. More recently, a 2017 meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies found SBTS had similar long-term oncologic outcomes to ES, leading the authors to con­clude that it should be considered the best treatment option for left- sided malignant colonic obstructions in centers with appropriate experience [25]. A similar meta­analysis considering only RCTs showed that SBTS was associated with lower short­term overall morbidity and lower rates of temporary and permanent stoma [9]. The authors concluded that depending on multiple factors such as local expertise and clinical status, including level of obstruction and level of certainty of diagnosis, SBTS does offer some advantages with less risk than ES for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction in the short-term. Patients’ characteristics and main ndings of the meta-analysis of only RCTs are summarized in Tables 27.2 and 27.3.
Although the evidence quality is low, because of the potential complications associated with SEMS, prophylactic stenting in the case of asymptomatic left-sided colon cancer cannot be recommended outside clinical trials [11]. Results of the CREST study are awaited to eventually reconsider this conclusion [26].
G. Melich et al.
Contraindications forSEMS
Absolute contraindications to colorectal stenting include documented perforation on imaging, concomitant small bowel obstruction, and very distal rectal lesions where stent placement poses a high risk of tenesmus and, when within 2cm of the anal verge, incontinence [27, 28]. In addition, stents are not recommended if bevacizumab- based chemotherapy is intended, due to increased risk of perforation [2830].
Relative contraindications include peritoneal carcinomatosis due to increased risk of perforation, uncorrectable coagulopathy, and extensive bleeding [ 31].
Principles andQuality Benchmarks
Most commercial SEMS are manufactured from the exible nickel-titanium alloy Nitinol and may be covered with polyurethane, polyethylene, or silicone, which makes them resistant to tumor invasion and tissue ingrowth but more prone to migration [27, 28, 30, 32].
Stent placement may be radiologic, endoscopic, or, as we prefer, a combination of both. The combined approach not only enables precise placement of the stent by facilitating guidewire delivery, particularly in tortuous colons and angulated or tight stenoses, but endoscopy permits biopsy when a pathologic diagnosis has yet to be made and decreases patient and operator exposure to radiation compared with uo­roscopy alone [33].
Stent length is selected by allowing an additional 2cm to extend proximally and distally past the lesion while ensuring the expanded stent fully abuts the bowel wall to prevent migration.
27 Large Bowel Obstruction: When Should Colon Stenting BeConsidered…
Trial stopped as
SBTS group had
increased absolute
Notes
No signicant
difference
SBTS groups,
operated at 3 or at
10days, these
showing higher
Trial included 2
Trial stopped as
emergency
conversion rate
SSI, hospital
stay, mortality
surgery group had
1-stage treatment
and lower
signicantly
increased rate of
anastomotic leak
risk of 30-day
Mean global
health status,
mortality,
morbidity, stoma
(continued)
morbidity on
interim analysis
rates
423
Signicant
difference
Time from
SEMS to
surgery
Type of
surgery Stent type
Type of
publication Recruitment
wound infection,
Wallstent <2weeks Blood loss, pain,
SBTS and
lap
Jan 2002/
May 2005
center; RCT
permanent
anastomotic leak
rates, stoma rate
N/A <10days Blood loss,
SBTS and
lap versus
Versus
ES open
Feb 2004/
Dec 2006
center; RCT
stoma pain,
postoperative
complications
open ES
morbidity and
anastomotic leak
Wallstent 5–7days Overall
open versus
open ES
with IOCL
SBTS and
center; RCT
rates
<4weeks Initial stoma
Wallstent/
Wallex
SBTS and
open
surgery
versus open
Mar 2007/
Aug 2009
RCT
ES
2009 China Single
Year Country
Cheung
Table 27.2 Characteristics of included studies and principal outcomes
Author
2011 Spain Single
Alcántara
[16]
[18]
Cui [38] 2011 China Single
2011 Netherlands Multicenter;
Van
Hooft
[14]
424
Trial stopped
owing to 3
Notes
No signicant
difference
Signicant
difference
colonic
resection,
in-hospital
perforations
during stent
placement and
high rate of
mortality,
surgical and
medical
morbidity rates
12 IOCL and 7
technical failure
of stent placement
STC in ES group
(16 of 30)
Stoma, overall
complications,
stay
group
30 TACIR in ES
mortality
complications,
bowel
movements
G. Melich et al.
13% misdiagnosis
at CT
Morbidity,
mortality, blood
transfusion,
relapse, OS, and
PFS curves
rates (pro
SBTS), hospital
stay (pro ES)
Time from
SEMS to
surgery
Type of
surgery Stent type
Type of
publication Recruitment
Year Country
Bard N/A Stoma, colonic
SBTS and
open
surgery
versus open
ES
Dec 2002/
Oct 2006
RCT
2011 France Multicenter;
N/A <10days Postoperative
Wallex 1–2weeks Shorter hospital
SBTS and
SBTS and
Oct 2004/
surgery
surgery
versus ES
Jan 2009/
May 2012
Feb 2008
center RCT
center; RCT
2013 Egypt Single
versus
subtotal
<4weeks Initial stoma
Wallex/
Hanaro
SBTS and
surgery
colectomy
Mar 2008/
Nov 2015
RCT
2017 Italy; Spain Multicenter;
versus ES
Table 27.2 (continued)
Pirlet
Author
Arezzo
Ghazal
[20]
Ho [19] 2012 Singapore Single
[17]
[21]
Cui etal. [38]
RCT randomized controlled trial, SBTS stent bridge to surgery, ES emergency surgery, SSI surgical site infection, IOCL intra-operative colonic lavage, TACIR
total abdominal colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis, SEMS self-expandable metallic stents, CT computed tomography, OS overall survival, PFS progression-
free survival
27 Large Bowel Obstruction: When Should Colon Stenting BeConsidered…
a
Mean follow-up in months
(SD or range)
19.15
POSSUM
score
17.13 37.6 (16.08)
425
ASA score
(I/II/III/
IV)
2
BMI Kg/m
(SD or
range)
Mean age in
years
(SD or
range)
No. of analyzed
patients M/F
No. of randomized
patients Group
65 (18–139)
32 (4–118)
23.8
(17.5–27.2)
24
(17.4–30.3)
(39–68)
(27–86)
ES 24 12/12 68.5
50 SBTS 24 14/10 64.5
/1/9/3
/5/8/2
ES 13 7/6 71.15 (9)
28 SBTS 15 5/10 71.9 (8.96)
12/27/14/3 – 36 (16–38)
11/28/16/4 –
(19.5–40.2)
(18–35)
ES 20 9/11 67.5 23.7
ES 51 27/24 71.4 (9.7) 17/27/6/0
ES 30 13/17 74.7 (11.3) 23.3 (4.2) 21 (5.2)
ES 19 9/10 65 (49–84)
ES 30 11/19 51 (35–66)
98 SBTS 47 24/23 70.4 (11.9) 16/24/6/0 6
67 SBTS 30 16/14 70.4 (10.3) 24.2 (5.1) 24.2 (7.6) –
60 SBTS 30 12/18 52 (37–68) 18 (6–40)
144 SBTS 56 28/28 72 (43–90) 24.8
ES 59 32/27 71 (44–94) 24.5
ES 246 120/126
Author
Cheung (2009)
Table 27.3 Characteristics of patients
[16]
Cui (2011) [38] 49 SBTS 29 16/13 64 22.3
Alcántara
(2011) [18]
Van Hooft
(2011) [14]
Pirlet (2011)
[20]
Ho (2012) [19] 40 SBTS 20 13/7 68 (51–85)
Ghazal (2013)
[17]
Arezzo (2017)
[21]
Total 536 SBTS 251 128/123
Cui etal. [38]
Mean+SD
SBTS stent bridge to surgery, ES emergency surgery, BMI body-mass index, ASA American Society of Anesthesiologists, SD standard deviation, POSSUM
physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity
a
426
Although there is no agreement on how long the stent should or could be kept in place depending on the different applications, it is generally recommended to await a minimum of 5days before proceeding to elective surgery if the stent was meant as a bridge to surgery. Some centers prefer to discharge patients and readmit them after a minimum of 2weeks before subsequent surgery. A full bowel preparation is ques­tionable after SEMS placement but generally not performed for concerns regarding possible stent migration. No evidence is provided in the literature to provide specic guidance in any of these topics.
Subsequent surgery is ideally carried out as a single procedure, but patients with multiple comorbidities (i.e., distant metastases) may require staged surgery, i.e., rst colorectal resection followed by systemic chemotherapy, after which liver­directed operation is performed.
G. Melich et al.
Preoperative Planning, Patient Workup, andOptimization
Complete blood count and, in cases where a bleeding diathesis is known or sus­pected, INR and PTT are ordered. If applicable, abnormalities are corrected. CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis are performed to localize the tumor, to assess for metastatic spread, and to identify contraindications to stent placement.
Prior to stent placement, patients can usually undergo a simple water enema.

Technique

Once the lesion is visualized endoscopically, a 5 Fr catheter threaded with a hydrophilic guidewire is passed via the endoscope’s 3.7mm working channel beyond the lesion. Threading is further facilitated via radiological guidance using static X-rays or uoroscopy (Fig. 27.1) [34]. Angulated strictures may require initial traversal either with a J-wire or with the use of a sphincterotome as cannula. The guidewire is retrieved, and water-soluble contrast is injected through the catheter to delineate the lesion and conrm required stent length under radiological guidance, if this is not clear by just observation of air contrast. A super stiff guidewire replaces the hydrophilic one (Fig.27.2), the catheter is removed, and the compressed SEMS delivery system is passed over the guide­wire into position (Fig.27.3) and expanded under both uoroscopic and endo­scopic visualization (Fig.27.4). Patency is conrmed by water-soluble contrast which also ensures the absence of leaks. Additional dilation via balloon is not performed to avoid perforation. X-rays are taken the day of the procedure and the day after to conrm appropriate placement, non-migration, and rule out asymp­tomatic perforation.
27 Large Bowel Obstruction: When Should Colon Stenting BeConsidered…
Fig. 27.1 Insertion of the J-wire under endoscopic and uoroscopic guidance
427
Fig. 27.2 Advancement of the super-stiff wire
428
Fig. 27.3 Advancement of the SEMS delivery system
G. Melich et al.
Fig. 27.4 Stent deployment
27 Large Bowel Obstruction: When Should Colon Stenting BeConsidered…
429
Pitfalls andTroubleshooting
Complications of SEMS include perforation, migration, obstruction, and bleeding. Immediate perforation typically occurs during guidewire or catheter advancement, while delayed perforation is associated with stent quality and high angulation stric­tures at the rectosigmoid junction [27, 31, 35, 36].
Partial migration or foreshortened stent length may be managed with placing a second overlapping stent. For re-obstruction, stent-in-stent deployment must be bal­anced against the increased risk of surgical failure with the placement of additional stents.
Bleeding is usually due to a friable tumor or mucosal injury and is typically self-limited.
Emergency surgery is required in cases of perforation, incorrect or unsalvageable stent placement, and unrelieved obstructive symptoms.

Learning Curve

Initial proctoring by a skilled operator is strongly recommended with the learning curve for colorectal stent insertion being reported as about 30 procedures for an experienced endoscopist [37]. We now know that one of the weaknesses of the Stent-In 2 trial study that signicantly inuenced subsequent statements and guide­lines was the variation in operator experience with stenting in the participating cen­ters, which could partly explain the high rate of perforations as compared with the published literature. As a result, in order to minimize the risk of perforation, sur­geons in the Netherlands must prove sufcient expertise before they can perform colonic stenting. The general consensus is that larger trials are mandatory and that stent placement should only be performed in centers where experienced endosco­pists are available.

Outcomes

Tables 27.2 and 27.3 summarize the ndings of all randomized trials pertaining to SBTS vs ES.The meta-analysis of RCTs investigated overall mortality and morbid­ity rates within 60days as primary outcomes. The overall mortality rate was 9.6% in the SBTS group and 9.9% in the ES group (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.53–1.82, p=0.955). The overall morbidity rate was 33.9% in the SBTS group and 51.2% in the ES group (RR=0.59, 95% CI 0.38–0.93, p=0.023). Among secondary out­comes, the temporary stoma rate was 33.9% in the SBTS group and 51.4% in the ES group (p< 0.001); the permanent stoma rate was 22.2% in the SBTS group and
35.2% in the ES group (p=0.003); the primary anastomosis success rate was 70.0% in the SBTS group and 54.1% in the ES group (p=0.043).