ArticleSurgical endoscopy2013
Does use of a metallic colon stent as a bridge to surgery modify the pathology data in patients with colonic obstruction? A case-matched study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perineural invasion is increased in patients receiving colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison of safety between self-expanding metal stents as a bridge to surgery and emergency surgery based on pathology: a meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Long-term outcomes of stent-related perforation in malignant colon obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Pooled it
- Short-term outcomes of a self-expandable metallic stent as a bridge to surgery vs. a transanal decompression tube for malignant large-bowel obstruction: a meta-analysis.Surgery today · 2019Pooled it
- Is bridge to surgery stenting a safe alternative to emergency surgery in malignant colonic obstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Pooled it
- Article
- Short-term and long-term outcomes of self-expandable metallic stent placement versus creation of a diverting stoma for obstructive colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2025Review
- Does Colorectal Stenting as a Bridge to Surgery for Obstructive Colorectal Cancer Increase Perineural Invasion?Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2024Article
- Comparison of Oncological and Perioperative Outcomes Between Self-Expanding Metal Stents and Decompression Tubes for Stages II and III Obstructive Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Observational Study.World journal of surgery · 2023Observational
- Long-term outcomes between self-expandable metallic stent and transanal decompression tube for malignant large bowel obstruction: A multicenter retrospective study and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023Review
- A multicenter case-control study of self-expanding metallic stent versus trans-anal colorectal tube for stage II/III non-right-sided obstructive colon cancer.Journal of gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Oncologic impact of colonic stents for obstructive left-sided colon cancer.World journal of clinical oncology · 2023Review
- Self-expandable metallic stents as a bridge to surgery in obstructive right- and left-sided colorectal cancer: a multicenter cohort study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Does the diameter of colonic stent influence the outcomes in bridge-to-surgery patients with malignant large bowel obstruction?Surgery today · 2021Article
- Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic approach to colonic obstruction for colon cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Does preoperative stent positioning in obstructive left sided colon cancer increase the risk of perineural invasion?Updates in surgery · 2021Article
- Short- and long-term outcomes of self-expanding metallic stent placement vs. emergency surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2021Article
- Propensity score-matched comparison of stenting as a bridge to surgery and emergency surgery for acute malignant left-sided colonic obstruction.BMC surgery · 2021Observational
- Short- and long-term outcomes after colonic self-expandable metal stent placement for malignant large-bowel obstruction as a bridge to surgery focus on the feasibility of the laparoscopic approach: a retrospective, single center study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2020Article
- Pathological impact of transanal colorectal tube for obstructive colorectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn a recent propensity score study, we established that overall- and disease-free survival were worse after use of a colonic stent (CS) than after emergency surgery for colonic obstruction. The present study sought to explain the association between CS use and poor survival by analyzing pathological specimens.
methodsFrom January 1998 to December 2011, all patients with left obstructive colon cancer and having been operated on with curative intent were included in the study. The primary end point involved a comparison of pathological data from the CS- and the surgery-only groups in a case-matched analysis (with the groups matched for the T stage). In a series of secondary analyses, we studied a range of factors known to be associated with adverse outcomes (microscopic perforation, vascular embolism, perineural invasion, and lymph node invasion) in the study population as a whole (in order to evaluate stenting as an adverse factor) and in the CS group alone (in order to identify factors associated with a poor prognosis in this specific group of patients).
resultsA total of 84 patients were included in the study (50 in the CS group). Stenting was mentioned in only 70 % of the pathology lab reports (n = 35/50). Twenty-five patients in the CS group were matched with 25 patients of the surgery-only group. Tumor ulceration (p < 0.0001), peritumor ulceration (p < 0.0001), perineural invasion (p = 0.008), and lymph node invasion (p = 0.005) were significantly more frequent in the CS group. In a multivariate analysis of the CS group, T4 status and tumor size were significant risk factors for microscopic perforation, perineural invasion, and lymph node invasion.
conclusionThe CS- and surgery-only groups differed significantly in terms of ulceration at or near the tumor, perineural invasion, and lymph node invasion. Explanation of the adverse outcomes associated with CS use will probably require further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.