What is the Best Option Between Primary Diverting Stoma or Endoscopic Stent as a Bridge to Surgery with a Curative Intent for Obstructed Left Colon Cancer? Results from a Propensity Score Analysis of the French Surgical Association Multicenter Cohort of 518 Patients

Background Endoscopic stent (ES) as a bridge to surgery in obstructed left colon cancer (OLCC) is controversial. Our goal was to compare the operative and oncological results of primary diverting colostomy (PDC) and ES for the curative treatment of OLCC. Methods Between 2000 and 2015, patients who u...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of surgical oncology 2019-03, Vol.26 (3), p.756-764
Hauptverfasser: Mege, Diane, Sabbagh, Charles, Manceau, Gilles, Bridoux, Valérie, Lakkis, Zaher, Momar, Diouf, Sielezneff, Igor, Karoui, Mehdi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Endoscopic stent (ES) as a bridge to surgery in obstructed left colon cancer (OLCC) is controversial. Our goal was to compare the operative and oncological results of primary diverting colostomy (PDC) and ES for the curative treatment of OLCC. Methods Between 2000 and 2015, patients who underwent PDC or ES in a curative intent for OLCC at member centers of the French Surgical Association were included. Patients with unresectable tumors and/or synchronous metastases were excluded. Comparisons between the two groups were performed after ponderation with propensity score for: demographic and tumor characteristics, operative, and oncological results. Results A total of 518 patients were included: PDC ( n  = 327); ES ( n  = 191). The demographic characteristics were similar between the groups. ES failed in 23% of the patients (11% perforation). Cumulative tumor resection rates were 80% and 86% after PDC and ES, respectively ( p  = 0.049). The rates of primary anastomosis were 57% in the PDC group and 40% in the ES group ( p 
ISSN:1068-9265
1534-4681
DOI:10.1245/s10434-018-07139-0