Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36220989›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023

Preoperative stents for the treatment of obstructing left-sided colon cancer: a national analysis.

Joseph Hadaya, Arjun Verma, Yas Sanaiha, Russyan Mark Mabeza, Formosa Chen, Peyman Benharash

Open access · hybridFull text read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joseph HadayaDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Arjun VermaDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Yas SanaihaDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Russyan Mark MabezaDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Formosa ChenDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Peyman BenharashDepartment of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. PBenharash@mednet.ucla.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4705-0262
University of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the risks associated with urgent colectomy for large bowel obstruction, preoperative colonic stenting has been utilized for decompression and optimization prior to surgery. This study examined national trends in the use of colonic stenting as a bridge to resection for malignant large bowel obstruction and evaluated outcomes relative to immediate colectomy.

methodsAdults undergoing colonic stenting or colectomy for malignant, left/sigmoid large bowel obstruction were identified in the 2010-2016 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients were classified as immediate resection (IR) or delayed resection (DR) if undergoing colonic stenting prior to colectomy. Generalized linear models were used to evaluate the impact of resection strategy on ostomy creation, in-hospital mortality, and complications.

resultsAmong 9,706 patients, 9.7% underwent colonic stenting, which increased from 7.7 to 16.4% from 2010 to 2016 (p < 0.001). Compared to IR, the DR group was younger (63.9 vs 65.9 years, p = 0.04), had fewer comorbidities (Elixhauser Index 3.5 vs 3.9, p = 0.001), and was more commonly managed at high-volume centers (89.4% vs 68.1%, p < 0.001). Laparoscopic resections were more frequent among the DR group (33.1% vs 13.0%, p < 0.001), while ostomy rates were significantly lower (21.5% vs 53.0%, p < 0.001). After risk adjustment, colonic stenting was associated with reduced odds of ostomy creation (0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.24-0.46), but similar odds of mortality and complications.

conclusionColonic stenting is increasingly utilized for malignant, left-sided bowel obstructions, and associated with lower ostomy rates but comparable clinical outcomes. These findings suggest the relative safety of colonic stenting for malignant large bowel obstruction when clinically appropriate.

Indexed as

Colonic NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsIntestinal ObstructionAdultColectomyHumansStentsTreatment OutcomeColectomyColonic decompressionColonic obstructionColonic stentingLarge bowel obstruction

Identifiers

PMID36220989
PMCPMC10017588
OpenAlexW4304205659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read35
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.