SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
Self-expandable metallic stent as bridge to surgery vs. emergency resection in obstructive right-sided colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridge-to-surgery in acute right-sided obstructing colon cancer: A survey of surgeons' perspectives on treatment strategies.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026Article
- Colonic Stenting as a Bridge to Surgery Versus Emergency Resection in Obstructive Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review of Surgical Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Review
- Transforming outcomes: the pivotal role of self-expanding metal stents in right- and left-sided malignant colorectal obstructions-bridge to surgery: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- EUS-guided enterocolostomy with lumen-apposing metal stents for palliative management of malignant bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmergency resection is common for malignant right-sided obstructive colon cancer. As there is evidence showing a potential benefit of self-expandable metal stents as a bridge to surgery, a new debate has been initiated.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare self-expandable metal stents with emergency resection in right-sided obstructive colon cancer. DATA SOURCE: A systematic search was conducted accessing Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting either emergency surgery or stent placement in right-sided obstructive colon cancer were included.
interventionStent or emergency resection in right-sided obstructive colon cancer.
main outcome measuresMorbidity rate, mortality rate, stoma rate, laparoscopic resection rate, anastomotic insufficiency rate, success rate of stent.
resultsA total of 6343 patients from 16 publications were analyzed. The stent success rate was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87 to 0.95) with perforation of 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.06). Emergency resection was performed laparoscopically at a rate of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.09 to 0.24). Primary anastomosis rate in emergency resection was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97) with an anastomotic insufficiency rate of 0.07 (95% CI, 0.04 to 0.11). The mortality rate after emergency resection was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.09). Primary anastomosis and anastomotic insufficiency rate were similar between the two groups (RR: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.1; p = 0.56 and RR: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.93; p = 0.33). The mortality rate in emergency resection was higher compared to stent (RR: 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 10.89, p = 0.016). LIMITATION: No randomized controlled trials are available.
conclusionStent is a safe and successful alternative to emergency resection and may increase the rate of minimally invasive surgery. Emergency resection, however, remains safe and did not result in higher rate of anastomotic insufficiency. Further high-quality comparative studies are warranted to assess long-term outcomes.
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.