A prospective evaluation of short-term and long-term results from colonic stenting for palliation or as a bridge to elective operation versus immediate surgery for large-bowel obstruction

Gianotti, Luca; Tamini, Nicolò; Nespoli, Luca; Rota, Matteo; Bolzonaro, Elisa; Frego, Roberto; Redaelli, A.; Antolini, Laura; Ardito, Antonella; Nespoli, Angelo; Dinelli, M.

doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2520-0

Cited by 103 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our obstruction and migration rate of the 18-mm group were totally 4.8 and 0%, which is in line with a previous report [25] . In addition, 18-mm stents could get adequate decompression.…”

Section: Optimal Diameter Of Semssupporting

confidence: 81%

The Feasibility of 18-mm-Diameter Colonic Stents for Obstructive Colorectal Cancers

Ogawa

Ishii²,

Minaga³

et al. 2017

Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics and the feasibility of 18-mm-diameter stents for obstructive colorectal cancer, comparing the clinical courses with 22- mm-diameter stents. Methods: We retrospectively compared 33 consecutive cases treated with 18-mm-diameter stents (bridge to surgery [BTS] in 25, palliative therapy [PAL] in 8) with 27 consecutive cases treated with 22-mm-diameter stents (BTS in 21, PAL in 6) for obstructive colorectal cancer between May 2013 and November 2015 in our institution. Results: There were no significant differences between the 18-mm and 22-mm groups in technical success rates (97 and 96%, respectively) and clinical success rates (100 and 100%, respectively). As a BTS, the rates of complications and stoma formation were not significantly different between groups. For PAL, although the rates of complications and stent patency were similar, stent occlusion occurred in 1 patient (12.5%) in the 18-mm group. Conclusions: The 18-mm-diameter stents were similarly effective when compared with 22-mm-diameter stents. Because 18-mm-diameter stents are easy to handle and produce less mechanical stress, they have the potential to decrease the perforation rate and mitigate the stent's impact on the tumors. 18-mm-diameter stents can be useful and safe, especially as a BTS.

show abstract

“…Our obstruction and migration rate of the 18-mm group were totally 4.8 and 0%, which is in line with a previous report [25] . In addition, 18-mm stents could get adequate decompression.…”

Section: Optimal Diameter Of Semssupporting

confidence: 81%

The Feasibility of 18-mm-Diameter Colonic Stents for Obstructive Colorectal Cancers

Ogawa

Ishii²,

Minaga³

et al. 2017

Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previously reported success rates of SEMS and TDT insertion are consistent with our findings (83%-100% for SEMS, 60%-90% for TDT). 15,18,19,[23][24][25][26][27] SEMS insertion has two main technical advantages over TDT insertion: (1) a thinner guide wire is available for SEMS insertion, which makes it easier to pass through the tumor and (2) the hand-produced insertion force can be efficiently transmitted to the tip of the device because the SEMS can pass through the scope, maintaining a straight and rigid colonic axis. Therefore, SEMS insertion can be performed not only for left-sided MLBO but also for right-sided MLBO relatively easily.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between metallic stent and transanal decompression tube for malignant large-bowel obstruction

Matsuda

Miyashita

Matsumoto

et al. 2016

Journal of Surgical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, when used for palliation, patients should be warned that they may need additional procedures and that there are high rates of long-term complications. 27 So for patients fit for surgery, surgery is typically the procedure of choice.…”

Section: Palliationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Colorectal Emergencies: Review and Controversies in the Management of Large Bowel Obstruction

Yeo

Lee

2013

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Traditionally, large bowel obstruction (LBO) has been managed as an operative emergency. Its causes and treatments are an important part of general surgical and colon and rectal surgery practices. Discussion While management has traditionally been emergent laparotomy with resection or removal of underlying pathology, newer methodologies and treatments over the last decade have required treating physicians to consider a number of other options, including nonoperative options such as stenting, when treating these patients. Conclusion Given these changes, treating a patient with LBO requires a thoughtful assessment and comprehensive understanding of underlying pathology, assessment of the patient's comorbidities and up-to-date knowledge of modern options for treatment.

show abstract

A prospective evaluation of short-term and long-term results from colonic stenting for palliation or as a bridge to elective operation versus immediate surgery for large-bowel obstruction

Cited by 103 publications

References 45 publications

The Feasibility of 18-mm-Diameter Colonic Stents for Obstructive Colorectal Cancers

The Feasibility of 18-mm-Diameter Colonic Stents for Obstructive Colorectal Cancers

Comparison between metallic stent and transanal decompression tube for malignant large-bowel obstruction

Colorectal Emergencies: Review and Controversies in the Management of Large Bowel Obstruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About