Добавил:
Sekretar
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
X
- •Preface
- •Acknowledgments
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1: SAGES University MASTERS Program: Colorectal Pathway
- •Introduction
- •References
- •Colorectal Surgery Curriculum
- •Facebook™ Groups
- •Conclusion
- •Operative Setup
- •Operating Room Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Trocar Placement
- •Top-Down Approach
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique
- •Port Placement
- •Left/Sigmoid Colectomy
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Supramesocolic Approach
- •Inframesocolic Approach
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Bibliography
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Laparoscopic Access
- •Colon Transection
- •Specimen Extraction
- •Anastomosis
- •Fistula Repair
- •Other Steps
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Solicit Institutional Support
- •Reviewing Current Data
- •Overcoming Barriers Through Culture Change
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Preoperative Risk Assessment
- •Special Considerations
- •Immune Suppression
- •Smokers
- •Malnutrition
- •Obesity
- •Renal Impairment
- •Preoperative Stoma Marking
- •Preoperative Patient Education
- •Parenteral Antibiotics
- •Positioning
- •Surgical Time-Out
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Preparation
- •Laparoscopic Access
- •Special Considerations
- •Complicated Peritoneal Entry
- •Equipment Issues
- •Physiologic Issues
- •Optimizing Laparoscopic Exposure
- •OR Table Positioning
- •Laparoscopic Visualization
- •Splenic Bleeding
- •Organ Injury
- •Small Bowel Injury
- •Ureteral Injury
- •Trocar Site Closure
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Definitions
- •Central Venous Ligation (CVL)
- •Pathological Outcomes
- •Long-Term Survival
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •12: Unexpected Findings at Appendectomy
- •Inflamed Meckel’s Diverticulum
- •Appendiceal Mass
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Cecal Diverticulitis
- •Sigmoid Diverticulitis
- •Epiploic Appendagitis
- •Crohn’s Disease
- •Gynecologic Pathology
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps, Medial-to-Lateral Approach
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Operative Techniques
- •Positioning
- •Trocars Placement
- •Side-to-Side Stapled Anastomosis
- •Side-to-Side Handsewn Anastomosis
- •Side-to-End Stapled Anastomosis
- •Side-to-End Handsewn Anastomosis
- •End-to-Side Handsewn Anastomosis
- •End-to-End Handsewn Anastomosis
- •Operative Time
- •Spillage
- •Alignment/Ergonomics
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •da Vinci Xi® Setup (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA)
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Complex Crohn’s Disease Resection
- •Crohn’s Fistula
- •Difficult Crohn’s Mesentery
- •Ileocolonic Reconstruction
- •Intracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Extracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Entry
- •Adhesiolysis
- •Thickened Mesentery
- •Anastomotic Problems
- •Postoperative Issues
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Preoperative Optimization
- •Accelerated Recovery Pathway
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Locally Advanced Tumors
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Colonic J Pouch
- •Transverse Coloplasty
- •Baker’s Anastomosis
- •Anastomotic Assessment
- •Rectal Stump Blowout
- •Staple Line Bleeding
- •Outcomes
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Anastomotic Assessment
- •Temporary Fecal Diversion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Malignant Diseases
- •Benign Diseases
- •Operative Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Room Setup
- •Operative Technique
- •Trocar Placement
- •Si® Robot (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA)
- •Xi® Robot (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA)
- •Si Robot
- •Xi Robot
- •Instrument Insertion
- •Extracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Intracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Instrument Collisions
- •Bleeding
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Adhesions
- •Difficult Rectal Stump Dissection
- •Rectal Stump Retraction
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Review Operative Report
- •Review Pathology Report
- •Cross-Sectional Imaging
- •Ureteral Stents
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Preoperative Staging
- •Indications and Contraindications
- •Multidisciplinary Management
- •Preoperative Versus Postoperative Chemoradiation
- •Short-Course Radiotherapy
- •Intraoperative Radiation
- •Adjuvant Chemotherapy
- •Total Neoadjuvant Therapy
- •Nonoperative Management
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Other Equipment/Incisions
- •Splenic Flexure Mobilization
- •Lateral Dissection
- •Pelvic Dissection
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Positioning
- •Port Placement
- •Extraction Site
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Splenic Flexure Release
- •Rectal Mobilization
- •Posterior Dissection
- •Lateral Dissection
- •Anterior Dissection
- •Pelvic Floor Dissection
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Synchronous Masses/Tumors
- •Meckel’s Diverticulum
- •Peritoneal Carcinomatosis
- •Liver Metastasis
- •Ovarian Mass
- •Malrotation
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Technique
- •Learning Curve
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Strategy
- •Operative Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Port Placement
- •Diagnostic Laparoscopy
- •Minimally Invasive Resectional Approach
- •Best Approach
- •Splenic Flexure Mobilization (If Needed)
- •Distal Colon Transection
- •Considerations During Laparoscopic Hartmann’s Procedure
- •Obese Patients
- •Minimally Invasive Non-resectional Approach
- •Laparoscopic Peritoneal Lavage
- •Operative Setup
- •Port Placement
- •Postoperative Management
- •Outcomes
- •Resection
- •Laparoscopic Lavage
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Splenic Flexure Release
- •Colonic Conduit Ischemia
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Surgeon-Related Factors
- •Bowel Preparation
- •Ureteral Stents
- •Patient Positioning
- •Pneumoperitoneum
- •Laparoscopic Exposure: Trocars
- •Laparoscopic Adhesiolysis

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 forSEMS
While rst-line use of SEMS for palliation of obstructing left-sided colon cancer in
the face of signicant comorbidity is widely accepted [10–13], its role in colonic
stent decompression as a bridge to elective surgery (SBTS) remains controversial.
This is reected by conicting international guidelines that are summarized in
Table27.1.
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 inuenced 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>70years
(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 [16–20]. 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 36months. The signicantly 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 signicantly 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 BeConsidered…
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
signicantly 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 forSEMS
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 2cm 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
[28–30].
Relative contraindications include peritoneal carcinomatosis due to increased
risk of perforation, uncorrectable coagulopathy, and extensive bleeding [ 31].
Principles andQuality 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 2cm 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 BeConsidered…
Trial stopped as
SBTS group had
increased absolute
Notes
– –
No signicant
difference
SBTS groups,
operated at 3 or at
10days, these
showing higher
– Trial included 2
Trial stopped as
emergency
conversion rate
SSI, hospital
stay, mortality
surgery group had
1-stage treatment
and lower
signicantly
increased rate of
anastomotic leak
risk of 30-day
Mean global
health status,
mortality,
morbidity, stoma
(continued)
morbidity on
interim analysis
rates
423
Signicant
difference
Time from
SEMS to
surgery
Type of
surgery Stent type
Type of
publication Recruitment
wound infection,
Wallstent <2weeks Blood loss, pain,
SBTS and
lap
Jan 2002/
May 2005
center; RCT
permanent
anastomotic leak
rates, stoma rate
N/A <10days 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 5–7days Overall
open versus
open ES
with IOCL
– SBTS and
center; RCT
rates
<4weeks Initial stoma
Wallstent/
Wallex
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 signicant
difference
Signicant
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 <10days Postoperative
Wallex 1–2weeks 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
<4weeks Initial stoma
Wallex/
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 etal. [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 BeConsidered…
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 etal. [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 5days 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 2weeks 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 specic
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, andOptimization
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 3.7mm 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 conrm 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 conrmed 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 conrm appropriate placement, non-migration, and rule out asymptomatic perforation.

27 Large Bowel Obstruction: When Should Colon Stenting BeConsidered…
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 BeConsidered…
429
Pitfalls andTroubleshooting
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 signicantly inuenced 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 sufcient 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 60days 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).
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
