SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
An evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic colon stenting in the treatment of obstructive left colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of colonic stenting in combination with elective surgery versus emergency surgery for the treatment of obstructive left colon cancer.
backgroundObstructive left colon cancer often presents a clinical challenge due to the acute nature of the obstruction, which requires prompt intervention. Traditionally, emergency surgery has been the standard approach to manage such cases, but it carries a higher risk of complications and morbidity. Colonic stenting has emerged as an alternative to provide a bridge to elective surgery, potentially reducing the need for urgent surgical intervention and improving patient outcomes. However, the long-term efficacy and safety of stenting in conjunction with elective surgery compared to emergency surgery remain topics of ongoing research and debate.
methodsA comprehensive search of domestic and international databases was conducted up to June 2022 to identify clinical research publications on the use of colonic stenting in conjunction with elective and emergency surgeries for obstructive left colon cancer. After assessing the quality of the included literature and extracting the relevant outcome indicators, data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.
resultsThe analysis revealed statistically significant differences in the total and local recurrence rates between the experimental group (stenting combined with elective surgery) and the control group (emergency surgery) [OR = 1.83, 95%CI (1.35,2.48), P < 0.0001, I2 = 76%, Z = 3.93]. Total survival duration and disease-free survival tenure were also found to be statistically significant [OR = 2.40, 95%CI (1.63,3.55), P < 0.0001, I2 = 49%, Z = 4.41]. However, the complication rate did not show a statistically significant difference [OR = 1.12, 95%CI (0.81,1.55), P = 0.05, I2 = 90%, Z = 0.67].
conclusionAlthough our statistical analysis showed significant differences in recurrence rates and survival times between stenting and emergency surgery groups, the clinical significance of these differences must be weighed against the short-term benefits of the stenting approach. When considering the total clinical picture, including complication rates, quality of life factors, and the ability to perform more targeted elective procedures, colonic stenting combined with elective surgery remains a valuable option for obstructive left colon cancer. Further research is warranted to confirm these findings and to refine the selection criteria for patients who would benefit most from colonic stenting.
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.