Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27071927›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016

Deviating colostomy construction versus stent placement as bridge to surgery for malignant left-sided colonic obstruction.

Femke J Amelung, Frank Ter Borg, Esther C J Consten, Peter D Siersema, Werner A Draaisma

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Large Bowel Obstruction: Etiologies, Diagnosis, and Management.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Colonic Stenting in the Emergency Setting.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021
    Review
  15. The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in emergency colorectal surgery.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2021
    Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Femke J AmelungDepartment of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Maatweg 3, 3813 TZ, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Frank Ter BorgDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Deventer Hospital, Nico Bolkesteinlaan 75, 7416 SE, Deventer, The Netherlands.
Esther C J ConstenDepartment of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Maatweg 3, 3813 TZ, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Peter D SiersemaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Werner A DraaismaDepartment of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Maatweg 3, 3813 TZ, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. wa.draaisma@meandermc.nl.
Meander Medisch Centrum · NLDeventer Ziekenhuis · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute colonic decompression using a deviating colostomy (DC) or a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) has been shown to lead to fewer complications and permanent stomas compared to acute resection in elderly patients with malignant left-sided colonic obstruction (LSCO). However, no consensus exists on which decompression method is superior, especially in patients treated with curative intend. This retrospective study therefore aimed to compare both decompression methods in potentially curable LSCO patients.

methodsAll LSCO patients treated with curative intent between 2004 and 2013 in two teaching hospitals were retrospectively identified. In one institution, a DC was the standard of care, whereas in the other all patients were treated with SEMS.

resultsIn total, 88 eligible LSCO patients with limited disease and curative treatment options were included; 51 patients had a SEMS placed and 37 patients a DC constructed. All patients eventually underwent a subsequent elective resection. In sum, 235 patients were excluded due to benign or inoperable disease. No significant differences were found for hospital stay, morbidity, disease-free and overall survival and mortality. Major complications were seen in 13/51 (25.5 %) patients in the SEMS group and were mostly due to stent dysfunction (n = 7). Also, one stent-related perforation occurred. Major complications occurred in 4/37 (10.8 %) patients in the DC group, including abdominal sepsis (n = 3) and wound dehiscence (n = 1). Long-term complication rate was significantly higher in the DC group (29.7 vs. 9.8 %, p = 0.01), mainly due to a high incisional hernia rate. Fewer patients had a temporary colostomy following elective resection after SEMS placement (62.2 vs. 17.6 %, p < 0.01). Permanent colostomy rate was not significantly different.

conclusionSEMS and DC are both effective decompression methods for curable LSCO patients with comparable short- and long-term oncological outcomes; however, more surgical procedures are performed after DC due to an increased number of temporary colostomies and incisional hernia repairs.

Indexed as

ColostomySelf Expandable Metallic StentsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColonic DiseasesColorectal NeoplasmsDecompression, SurgicalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntestinal ObstructionMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBridge to surgeryColon carcinomaColonic obstructionColostomySEMSStent

Identifiers

PMID27071927
OpenAlexW2340043433

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.