A retrospective evaluation of short-term results from colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant intestinal obstruction

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1695319/v3

Abstract

Purpose: The efficacy and safety of self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement as a bridge to elective surgery versus emergency surgery to treat malignant intestinal obstruction is debated. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with malignant intestinal obstruction treated using different procedure.

Methods: Subjects admitted to the authors’ department with colonic obstruction (n = 87) were studied. They underwent colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery (SEMS group: n = 14) or emergency surgery (ES group:n=22).Their demographic characteristics, stoma rate, laparoscopy rate and postoperative complications were analyzed, and the potential risk factors of postoperative complications and the optimal time interval from SEMS implantation to elective surgery were explored.

Results: The stoma rate was 15% in the SEMS group versus 60 % in the ES group (P = 0.02), and the postoperative complication rate was 8% in the SEMS group versus 40% in the ES group (P = 0.04). The proportion of patients undergoing laparoscopy in SEMS group was significantly higher than that in ES group (69% vs. 15%; P = 0.003).The effect of ASA grade on postoperative complications was statistically significant (OR = 24.6; P = 0.008). The Receiving operating characteristic(ROC) curve could not determine the optimal time interval between SEMS implantation and elective surgery (AUC = 0.466).

Conclusions:SEMS implantation has the advantages of lower temporary stoma rate, less postoperative complications and higher laparoscopy rate compared with ES in the treatment of left malignant intestinal obstruction. ASA grade is a risk factor for postoperative complications. However, larger sample size prospective randomized controlled trials(RCT) are still needed to confirm long-term oncological outcomes.

Introduction

Colon cancer is the most common type of malignancy in the world, particularly in economically developed countries, and the incidence of colon cancer remains high in China as well [1]. Colon cancer patients typically present with altered fecal characteristics and bowel habits, as well as abdominal pain and distension. There is a thin lumen on the left colon and hard feces, and the histological type is infiltrative, which may result in annular stenosis, so approximately 10% - 15% of patients with colon cancer initially manifest complete or incomplete intestinal obstruction [2, 3], of which 75% of patients develop ileus in the left colon. Patients who suffer obstructions typically undergo surgical emergency surgery (ES) in order to eliminate the obstruction. There has been study showing a mortality rate of 15% - 20% in ES, and complications range from 45% - 81%. [4]. Consequently, self-expanding metal stent(SEMS) have been increasingly used for preoperative transition since 1991 and have been shown to be a safe and effective treatment option for obstructive colon cancer. Because of more appropriate preoperative preparation, tumor resection after stenting results in a lower complication rate and mortality rate compared to ES, which are only 0.9% - 6%. [4]. However, three randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating the advantages of SEMS over ES in recent years were prematurely terminated. This is mainly because of the high rate of perforation and anastomotic leak in the SEMS group,the technical success rate of SEMS placement is low without difference in stoma rate [5-7]. Currently, the use of colonic stents in malignant intestinal obstruction patients remains controversial [8,9]. This study collected data of patients with acute intestinal obstruction who received different treatments in our hospital from January 2014 to October 2021, and aimed to analyze the short-term outcomes of two methods, ES and SEMS placement, for left colon cancer with obstruction.

Materials And Methods

Patient identification and enrollment

This study was approved by the ethics committee of The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University. In this study, we reviewed patient data from left colon cancer patients with obstruction at our hospital between January 2014 and October 2021 and divided them into two groups according to whether they received stent placement (SEMS group) or emergency surgery (ES group). Inclusion criteria: 1) Patients who had symptoms such as abdominal discomfort or distention prior to surgery, or imaging shows such as bowel distension or air-fluid level; 2)Postoperative diagnosed with colon cancer by histopathology; 3)The primary tumor was located between the splenic flexure and the rectosigmoid junction. Exclusion criteria: 1) Multisite obstruction or obstruction of the small bowel, or large bowel perforation, peritonitis, intestinal adhesion; 2) Surgery was not performed after SEMS placement on the tumor; 3) Patients who has to undergo emergency surgery because of a difficult stent placement or complications related to the stent.

Methods

SEMS placement

All patients were evaluated by a routine physical examination during admission to determine their general health status. The length of obstruction was estimated based on the extent and location of the tumor assessed by electronic colonoscopy and computed tomography(CT).  Propofol infusion was used under anesthetist supervision during the procedure. A nitinol uncovered stent was inserted through the working channel of the endoscope. The procedure was stopped in cases of significantly varied patient vital signs, uncontrolled pain, or significant abdominal distension, or if the relative position between the colonoscope and the visible part of the stricture was not stable. The SEMS placement procedure was performed by 2 experienced interventional physicians. If the patient has severe complications after stent placement that do not respond to conservative treatment, the patient is transitioned to emergency surgery. The decision to refer a patient for emergency surgery or for SEMS placement with a later elective operation was made by the senior on-call surgeon. The type of operation and the technique to be used were determined by the surgeon according to the location of the primary disease and the intraoperative conditions. The interval from SEMS placement to elective surgery also was chosen by the attending surgeon based on clinical condition and bowel function.

ES

Patients in the ES group were routinely prepared preoperatively and underwent emergency surgery in a timely manner. As noted, the type of operation to be used were determined by the surgeon according to the intraoperative conditions. Colostomy is considered an optional surgical procedure.

Outcome measures

Data on demographics, comorbidities, tumor location, stent related complications, surgical approach, whether or not a stoma was created, operative time, number of lymph nodes dissected, postoperative hospital stay, histopathological findings, and postoperative complications were collected. The success rates of stent placement, including technical success and clinical success, were analyzed. Technical success was defined as whether stent placement was successful. Clinical success was defined as colonic decompression and relief of obstructive symptoms within 24 h for those patients who had SEMS placed, and no stent related complications have occurred until the time of elective surgery.

Statistics

All data were processed and analyzed using SPSS26 statistical software. Quantitative data that met normal distribution were reported as mean ± standard deviation (x ± s), and the comparison of means between two samples was performed by t-test. Qualitative data were reported as frequency (n) and percentage (%), and chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was performed; Multiple logistic regression models were used to evaluate risk factors associated with surgical complications. The Receiving operating characteristic(ROC) curve analysis was used to determine the optimal time interval from SEMS placement to elective surgery. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Outcome

A total of 87 patients with left colon cancer were collected, including 54 patients with intestinal obstruction due to non malignancy, 22 patients who underwent ES, and 14 patients who underwent SEMS. Three were excluded because of the obstruction was not relieved (n=1) and resection was not performed in the advanced stage of the tumor (n=2) according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, 13 were included in the SEMS group and 20 in the ES group. A flowchart of patient allocation is shown in Fig.1.

There were no statistical differences in gender, mean age, body mass index (BMI), and tumor location between the two groups. There was no significant difference in pathological stage between the two groups (P = 0.550) (Table 1). The technical success rate of stenting in the SEMS group was 100% (22 / 24), with 1 patient whose symptoms of intestinal obstruction were not relieved and who was transferred to the ES. The clinical remission rate of 93% (13 / 14). The mean time interval between SEMS placement and elective surgery was 18 days (11-41 days), with two patients having significantly longer wait times due to preoperative chemotherapy. There were no statistically significant differences in operative time, number of lymph nodes harvested and postoperative hospital stay. 12 temporary or permanent stomas in the ES group, a lower stoma rate in the SEMS group (15% vs. 60%; P = 0.02) and a significantly higher proportion of patients undergoing laparoscopy in the SEMS group (69% vs.15%; P = 0.003) (Table 2). The incidence of postoperative complications was higher in the ES group than in the SEMS group (8% vs. 40%; P = 0.04) (Table 3).

Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and SEMS placement were included to construct multivariate logistic regression equations. It was found that there was no statistical significance regarding the effect of age or SEMS placement on postoperative complications (OR = 1.0, 95% CI 0.9-1.1, P = 0.6; OR = 0.1, 95% CI 0.01-1.5, P = 0.1); The effect of ASA grade on postoperative complications was statistically significant (OR = 24.6, 95% CI 2.3-263.3, P = 0.008) (Table 4).

The ROC curve could not identify the optimal time interval between SEMS placement and elective surgery (AUC = 0.466) (Fig.2).


Table 1 Patient Characteristics of patient in SEMS group vs. ES group

 

SEMS(n=13)

ES(n=20)

p value

Age (years, mean±SD)

69±14

65±12

0.4

Gender(male/female)

11/3

15/5

 

BMI (kg/m2, mean±SD)

21±4

24±3

0.05

Diabetes (%)

1(8)

6(30)

0.2

Hypertension (%)

6(46)

5(25)

0.3

Site of tumor (%)

 

 

0.4

Splenic flexure of colon

0(0)

3(15)

 

Descending colon

8(62)

11(55)

 

Sigmoid

3(23)

5(25)

 

Rectosigmoid

2(15)

1(5)

 

ASA classification (%)

 

 

0.9

1

5(39)

9(45)

 

2

7(54)

9(45)

 

3

1(8)

2(10)

 

Stage (%)

 

 

0.6

II

4(31)

7(35)

 

III

5(39)

10(50)

 

IV

4(31)

3(15)

 

 

Table 2 Operative outcomes

 

SEMS(n=13)

ES(n=20)

p value

Operative time (min, mean±SD)

147±49

148±60

0.9

Lymph nodes(mean±SD)

16 ±7

14±4

0.2

Postoperative hospital stay(day) 

14 ±4

14 ±6

1

Perineural invasion (%)

4(31)

7(35)

1

Approach (%)

 

 

0.003

Laparoscopic

9(69)

3(15)

 

Open

4(31)

17(85)

 

Stoma (%)

 

 

0.02

Yes

2(15)

12(60)

 

No

11(85)

8(40)

 

 

Table 3 Postoperative complications.

 

STBS(n=13)

ES(n=20)

p value

Overall complication (%)

1(8)

8(40)

0.04

Wound infection

0(0)

3(15)

 

Pneumonia

1(8)

5(25)

 

Anastomotic leakage

0(0)

2(10)

 

 

Table 4 Multiple logistic regression analysis

Covariates

Odds ratio (95% confidence interval)

p value

Age

1.0 (0.9-1.1)

0.6

SEMS implantation

0.1 (0.01-1.5)

0.1

ASA classification

24.6(2.3-263.3)

0.008


Discussions

According to previous studies, the success rate of ES rather than colostomy is about 28% - 41% [10, 11]. It is usually accompanied by a variety of complications and higher mortality and stoma rate, which result in the terrible quality-of-life. SEMS placement allows doctors ample time to evaluate a patient's tumor staging and avoid unnecessary surgery. It also can reduce perioperative complications and stoma. This provides the opportunity to doctors a variety of treatments, such as preoperative chemotherapy and laparoscopy for malignant colon obstruction. Contrasting previous RCT [5-7], the technical success rate was 100% and the clinical success rate was 93% in our study. This shows that SEMS placement needs to be done by specialized endoscopist, who need to master more techniques in stent placement. It has been found that age and site of obstruction were significantly associated with intestinal perforation [12]. Particularly in the splenic flexure of the colon, the angle of curvature of the lumen is further increased as intestinal dilatation, making it more difficult and leading to perforation at the time of stent placement. There was only 1 case in this study in which the symptoms of intestinal obstruction did not relieve after SEMS placement, and no other stent related complications occurred.

Cirocchi et al. reported that there was no advantage of SEMS placement for malignant obstruction of left-sied colon in terms of complications and postoperative mortality [13], but it can increase the primary anastomosis rate and reduce the stoma. There were no postoperative deaths in this study, which may be related to the small sample size. Consistent with the results of some RCT[7, 14-16], SEMS group was significantly better than ES group in postoperative complications, primary anastomosis rate and stoma rate, which may be related to the fact that it can improve patients' clinical condition and bowel function before elective surgery.

Laparoscopy is affected by dilation of the small intestine and the proximal colon, making it difficult to perform it for obstructive colon cancer , although it carries the advantages of shorter hospital stays, faster postoperative recovery, and easier control of the immune and inflammatory responses [17]. SEMS placement can save enough time for bowel preparation and recovery of clinical condition to allow for laparoscopy. In the present study, we found that laparoscopy was performed more frequently in the SEMS group (69% vs. 15%; P = 0.003). This is comparable to research conducted by Law [18] and Seung et al.[19] , the latter chose laparoscopy technology after using SEMS.

Many studies have shown that SEMS placement does not decrease survival [7, 14-16]. However, Sabbagh et al.[20] noted that the SEMS group had a significantly worse overall survival than the ES group (25% vs. 62%, P = 0.0003). Sloothaak et al.[21] explained that SEMS placement may increase the risk of recurrence because there is a higher recurrence rate in patients with perforations. Stent-related complications are closely related to stent implantation technology, so the success rate of stent implantation is the first problem to be solved. It has also been found that SEMS placement can change perineural invasion and lymphatic invasion, and negatively affect the long-term prognosis of patients [22]. The reason may be that the compression of the tumor after the placement of SEMS and the creation of silent perforation of the intestine [5] promote the progression and metastasis of the tumor. Many studies suggest that SEMS implantation should only be performed in centre with experienced endoscopists because of the uncertainty of the impact of SEMS implantation on tumor outcome. Therefore, the impact of SEMS placement on tumor characteristics and patients' long-term outcomes still needs further investigation.

Postoperative complications are important factors affecting surgical outcomes and patients' quality of life, therefore, it is necessary to minimize postoperative complications as much as possible. Age, ASA grade and SEMS were included to construct a multivariate logistic regression equation in this study. We found that ASA grade was a risk factor for postoperative complications. So, colonic stenting allows for a more thorough and detailed preoperative evaluation to lower ASA grade and enhance anesthesia tolerance. The difference in clinical efficacy between the SEMS group and the ES group may have been achieved by lowering the ASA grade. Comply with the guidelines of the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE): SEMS apply to patients with ASA grade ≥ III / aged > 70 years [23]. However, there was no statistical difference in the age and placement of SEMS in this study. The reason may be that small sample size limits statistical performance.

The optimal time interval from SEMS placement to elective surgery remains uncertain. We hypothesized that the clinical benefit of an optimal interval manifests in postoperative complications, then a time point or period needs to be determined such that postoperative complications are minimal. The results showed that different time intervals were not associated with postoperative complications, which was consistent with the results of a previous study [24]. The relationship between time interval and overall survival rate and recurrence rate can be further considered to find the clinical significance of the best time interval from the long-term results.

This study is limited by a small sample size retrospective study, and other statistical differences between the two groups may be omitted. This study is a non randomized trial, which may have selection bias, because some patients with more serious condition, more significant intestinal dilatation and worse general condition were selected into the ES group, resulting in worse results in the ES group.

Conclusions

SEMS implantation has the advantages of lower temporary stoma rate, less postoperative complications and higher laparoscopy rate compared with ES in the treatment of left malignant intestinal obstruction. ASA grade is a risk factor for postoperative complications. However, larger sample size prospective RCT are still needed to confirm long-term oncological outcomes.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate  This research study was conducted retrospectively from data obtained for clinical purposes. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University.

Consent for publication  Not applicable.

Availability of data and material  All data and materials are not applicable because of the patient privacy agreement.

Competing interests  The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding  This study was supported by Clinical Research of Gusu School, Nanjing Medical University. (GSKY20210213)

Contributions  Mu Chongjing, Chen Lei: concept and design of the study, interpretation of results, writing of manuscript and final revision. Mu Chongjing: data collection, data analysis. All authors approved the final version of manuscript.

Acknowledgements  We appreciated clinical departments for data support to the manuscript.

References

1.         Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F(2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71:209-249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660

2.         Cheynel N, Cortet M, Lepage C, Benoit L, Faivre J, Bouvier AM(2007) Trends in frequency and management of obstructing colorectal cancers in a well-defined population. Dis Colon Rectum 50:1568-1575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-007-9007-4

3.         Tekkis PP, Kinsman R, Thompson MR, Stamatakis JD, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain I(2004) The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland study of large bowel obstruction caused by colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 240:76-81. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000130723.81866.75

4.         Angenete E, Asplund D, Bergstrom M, Park PO(2012) Stenting for colorectal cancer obstruction compared to surgery--a study of consecutive patients in a single institution. Int J Colorectal Dis 27:665-670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-011-1374-6

5.         van Hooft JE, Bemelman WA, Oldenburg B, Marinelli AW, Lutke Holzik MF, Grubben MJ, Sprangers MA, Dijkgraaf MG, Fockens P, collaborative Dutch Stent-In study g(2011) Colonic stenting versus emergency surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 12:344-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70035-3

6.         Pirlet IA, Slim K, Kwiatkowski F, Michot F, Millat BL(2011) Emergency preoperative stenting versus surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 25:1814-1821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1471-6

7.         Alcantara M, Serra-Aracil X, Falco J, Mora L, Bombardo J, Navarro S(2011) Prospective, controlled, randomized study of intraoperative colonic lavage versus stent placement in obstructive left-sided colonic cancer. World J Surg 35:1904-1910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-011-1139-y

8.         Ribeiro IB, Bernardo WM, Martins BDC, de Moura DTH, Baba ER, Josino IR, Miyahima NT, Coronel Cordero MA, Visconti TAC, Ide E, Sakai P, de Moura EGH(2018) Colonic stent versus emergency surgery as treatment of malignant colonic obstruction in the palliative setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 6:E558-E567. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0591-2883

9.         Arezzo A, Passera R, Lo Secco G, Verra M, Bonino MA, Targarona E, Morino M(2017) Stent as bridge to surgery for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction reduces adverse events and stoma rate compared with emergency surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 86:416-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.03.1542

10.       Martinez-Santos C, Lobato RF, Fradejas JM, Pinto I, Ortega-Deballon P, Moreno-Azcoita M(2002) Self-expandable stent before elective surgery vs. emergency surgery for the treatment of malignant colorectal obstructions: comparison of primary anastomosis and morbidity rates. Dis Colon Rectum 45:401-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-6190-4

11.        Repici A, Conio M, Caronna S, Angelis CD, Costa CD, Morino M, Foco A, Mioli P, Petruzzelli L, Rizzetto M, Martini S, Saracco G(2004) Early and Late Outcome of Patients with Obstructing Colorectal Cancer Treated by Stenting and Elective Surgery: A Comparison with Emergency Surgery and Patients Operated Without Obstructive Symptoms. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 59:P275. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(04)01217-9

12.       Lee YJ, Yoon JY, Park JJ, Park SJ, Kim JH, Youn YH, Kim TI, Park H, Kim WH, Cheon JH(2018) Clinical outcomes and factors related to colonic perforations in patients receiving self-expandable metal stent insertion for malignant colorectal obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 87:1548-1557 e1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.02.006

13.       Cirocchi R, Farinella E, Trastulli S, Desiderio J, Listorti C, Boselli C, Parisi A, Noya G, Sagar J(2013) Safety and efficacy of endoscopic colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery in the management of intestinal obstruction due to left colon and rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Oncol 22:14-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2012.10.003

14.       Spannenburg L, Sanchez Gonzalez M, Brooks A, Wei S, Li X, Liang X, Gao W, Wang H(2020) Surgical outcomes of colonic stents as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of high quality prospective and randomised controlled trials. Eur J Surg Oncol 46:1404-1414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2020.04.052

15.       Arezzo A, Balague C, Targarona E, Borghi F, Giraudo G, Ghezzo L, Arroyo A, Sola-Vera J, De Paolis P, Bossotti M, Bannone E, Forcignano E, Bonino MA, Passera R, Morino M(2017) Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant colonic obstruction: results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (ESCO trial). Surg Endosc 31:3297-3305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5362-3

16.       Tung KL, Cheung HY, Ng LW, Chung CC, Li MK(2013) Endo-laparoscopic approach versus conventional open surgery in the treatment of obstructing left-sided colon cancer: long-term follow-up of a randomized trial. Asian J Endosc Surg 6:78-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/ases.12030

17.       Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study G, Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, Fleshman J, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW, Jr., Hellinger M, Flanagan R, Jr., Peters W, Ota D(2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050-2059. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa032651

18.       Law WL, Poon JT, Fan JK, Lo OS(2013) Colorectal resection after stent insertion for obstructing cancer: comparison between open and laparoscopic approaches. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 23:29-32. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0b013e318275743b

19.       Yang SY, Park YY, Han YD, Cho MS, Hur H, Min BS, Lee KY, Kim NK(2019) Oncologic Outcomes of Self-Expandable Metallic Stent as a Bridge to Surgery and Safety and Feasibility of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Acute Malignant Colonic Obstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 26:2787-2796. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07346-3

20.       Sabbagh C, Browet F, Diouf M, Cosse C, Brehant O, Bartoli E, Mauvais F, Chauffert B, Dupas JL, Nguyen-Khac E, Regimbeau JM(2013) Is stenting as "a bridge to surgery" an oncologically safe strategy for the management of acute, left-sided, malignant, colonic obstruction? A comparative study with a propensity score analysis. Ann Surg 258:107-115. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827e30ce

21.       Sloothaak DA, van den Berg MW, Dijkgraaf MG, Fockens P, Tanis PJ, van Hooft JE, Bemelman WA, collaborative Dutch Stent-In study g(2014) Oncological outcome of malignant colonic obstruction in the Dutch Stent-In 2 trial. Br J Surg 101:1751-1757. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9645

22.       Balciscueta I, Balciscueta Z, Uribe N, Garcia-Granero E(2021) Perineural invasion is increased in patients receiving colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 25:167-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02350-2

23.van Hooft JE, Veld JV, Arnold D, Beets-Tan RGH, Everett S, Gotz M, van Halsema EE, Hill J, Manes G, Meisner S, Rodrigues-Pinto E, Sabbagh C, Vandervoort J, Tanis PJ, Vanbiervliet G, Arezzo A(2020) Self-expandable metal stents for obstructing colonic and extracolonic cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2020. Endoscopy 52:389-407. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1140-3017

24.       Gianotti L, Tamini N, Nespoli L, Rota M, Bolzonaro E, Frego R, Redaelli A, Antolini L, Ardito A, Nespoli A, Dinelli M(2013) A prospective evaluation of short-term and long-term results from colonic stenting for palliation or as a bridge to elective operation versus immediate surgery for large-bowel obstruction. Surg Endosc 27:832-842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2520-0