Current Status of the Self-Expandable Metal Stent as a Bridge to Surgery Versus Emergency Surgery in Colorectal Cancer: Results from an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature

Background: The current use of endoscopic stenting as a bridge to surgery is not always accepted in standard clinical practice to treat neoplastic colonic obstructions. Objectives: The role of colonic self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) positioning as a bridge to resective surgery versus emergency surgery (ES) for malignant obstruction, using all new data and available variables, was studied and we focused on short- and long-term results. Materials and Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases were included. The search comprised only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the interventions that included SEMS positioning versus ES. The primary outcomes were the rates of overall postoperative mortality, clinical and technical success. The secondary outcomes were the short- and long-term results. Results: A total of 12 studies were eligible for further analyses. A laparoscopic colectomy was the most common operation performed in the SEMS group, whereas the traditional open approach was commonly used in the ES group. Intraoperative colonic lavage was seldomly performed during ES. There were no differences in mortality rates between the two groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.04; I2 = 0%). In the SEMS group, the rate of successful primary anastomosis was significantly higher in of SEMS (69.75%) than in the ES (55.07%) (RR 1.26, 95% 245 CI 1.01 to 1.57; I2 = 86%). Conversely, the upfront Hartmann procedure was performed more frequently in the ES (39.1%) as compared to the SEMS group (23.4%) (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.85; I2 = 23%). The overall postoperative complications rate was significantly lower in the SEMS group (32.74%) than in the ES group (48.25%) (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; I2 = 65%). Conclusions: In the presence of malignant colorectal obstruction, SEMS is safe and associated with the same mortality and significantly lower morbidity than the ES group. The rate of successful primary anastomosis was significantly higher than the ES group. Nevertheless, recurrence and survival outcomes are not significantly different between the two groups. The analysis of short- and long-term results can suggest the use of SEMS as a bridge to resective surgery when it is performed by an endoscopist with adequate expertise in both colonoscopy and fluoroscopic techniques and who performed commonly colonic stenting.