Acute resection versus bridge to surgery with diverting colostomy for patients with acute malignant left sided colonic obstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis. (December 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Amelung, Femke J.; Mulder, Charlotte L.J.; Verheijen, Paul M.; Draaisma, Werner A.; Siersema, Peter D.; Consten, Esther C.J.
• Is Part Of: Surgical oncology. Volume 24:Number 4(2015)
• Page Start: 313
• Page End: 321
• Publication Date: 2015-12
• Subjects: Left-sided colonic obstruction -- Colon cancer -- Bridge to surgery -- Colostomy -- Primary resection; 95%CI 95% confidence interval -- LSCO left-sided colonic obstruction -- OR odds ratio -- PRISMA preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses -- MINORS methodological index for non-randomized studies; Cancer -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- surgery -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.994059
• DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2015.10.003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0960-7404

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Currently, no consensus exists on the best treatment strategy for acute malignant left-sided colonic obstruction. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes following the two surgical treatment options; primary resection versus colostomy creation as bridge to surgery. Methods: This systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to minimize risk of bias. Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for all relevant literature. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the MINORS criteria. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated using random effects models. Results: Eight comparative studies were included, reporting on 2424 patients; 1973 patients were treated with primary resection and 451 patients with colostomy construction followed by elective resection. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences between both treatment groups regarding 30-day mortality and morbidity (OR = 0.77, 95%CI 0.3–1.96 and OR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.51–1.13, respectively). However, patients treated with a colostomy followed by elective resection had significantly more primary anastomoses constructed and were less likely to be left with a permanent colostomy (OR = 0.17, 95%CI 0.11–0.26 and OR = 0.22, 95%CI 0.11–0.46, respectively). Conclusion: This systematic review provides an overview of all available literature on primary resection versus colostomy creation as bridge to surgery in patients with acute LSCO. Keeping the limitations of this study in mind, we conclude that a diverting colostomy as bridge to surgery is a safe and valid alternative for primary resection. Highlights: We compared acute resection with colostomy as treatment for colonic obstruction. Colostomy as bridge to surgery is a safe and valid alternative to acute resection. 30-day Mortality and morbidity rates are similar between treatment groups. Fewer primary anastomoses and more permanent colostomies in the stent group. Further research is needed, since literature on stoma as bridge to surgery is scarce.