Front. Surg. Frontiers in Surgery Front. Surg. 2296-875X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1400814 Surgery Review Danish guidelines for treating acute colonic obstruction caused by colorectal cancer—a review MikalonisMartynas 1 * AvlundTue Højslev 2 LøveUffe Schou 1 Department of Surgery, Regional Hospital Viborg, Viborg, Denmark Department of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

Edited by: Selman Sokmen, Dokuz Eylül University, Türkiye

Reviewed by: Paola De Nardi, San Raffaele Hospital (IRCCS), Italy

Roy Hajjar, Montreal University, Canada

 Correspondence: Martynas Mikalonis mamika@rm.dk 19112024 2024 111400814 14032024 28102024 © 2024 Mikalonis, Avlund and Løve. 2024Mikalonis, Avlund and Løve

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Acute onset of colonic obstruction caused by colorectal cancer occurs in approximately 14% of Danish patients with colon cancer(1). Given that colorectal cancer is a common cancer with about 4,500 new cases annually, acute onset will occur in a reasonably large number of patients in Danish emergency departments, and all surgeons should be familiar with the treatment principles. A revised guideline from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group is currently underway, and this status article reviews the latest knowledge and recommendations.

 colorectal cancer colonic obstruction emergency guidelines surgery section-at-acceptanceColorectal and Proctological Surgery Introduction

Bowel obstruction as a first symptom is observed in approximately 14% of Danish patients with colon cancer according to previous Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG) annual reports (1). Understanding the treatment options for acute colonic cancer obstruction is crucial for timely intervention and improved patient outcomes.

Traditionally, emergency surgery has been performed to treat patients with acute colonic obstruction. Emergency surgery for colon cancer is still associated with high 30- and 90-day mortality rates. Changing from emergency to elective surgery for the treatment of acute colonic obstruction without perforation seems to be desirable. This approach will enable preoperative staging, optimization and planning of the procedure. Patients with metastatic cancer without signs of bowel perforation can be spared surgery.

Another feared complication associated with high morbidity and mortality rates is colonic perforation. The risk of perforation of the coecum in patients with colonic ileus increases with radiological findings of a coecum diameter ≥12 cm, and urgent decompression is recommended (2).

These guidelines address the management of large bowel obstruction in patients with colorectal cancer. The overall purpose of these guidelines is to provide uniform, high quality evidence-based cancer treatment across Denmark. These guidelines are primarily intended to support clinical work and the development of clinical treatment quality, which is why the primary target group in the Danish health care system is health care professionals (surgeons, oncologists, primary health care physicians, policy-makers).

Recently, updated ASCRS guidelines provide similar management recommendations for patients with right-sided and left-sided colonic obstruction as well as for those with colonic perforation (3).

 Materials and methods

A literature review was performed using PubMed articles from 2010–2022 with the search string “Intestinal Obstruction” [Mesh]) OR (“bowel obstruction” OR “obstruction” OR “colon obstruction” OR “intestinal obstruction”). Available literature from the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase electronic databases was used for the section on the treatment of perforation. The search strategy was as follows: (Colon cancer OR Rectal cancer OR colorectal cancer) AND Perforation AND surgery AND acute AND emergency. Only articles in English were searched for. Any potential conflicts were resolved through discussion after the screening results were revealed, and if any disagreements persisted, the systematic review coordinator made the final decision. The same reviewers conducted a full-text screening of the selected articles. The Oxford 2009 Levels of Evidence were used to determine levels of evidence and levels of recommendation.

 Results and discussion Diagnostics

In acute colonic obstruction, a computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen with IV contrast should be performed (B).

The diagnosis of colonic ileus can be made by CT scan, which has a high sensitivity (91%) and specificity (91%) (4) [2B]. CT scans can be used to identify the anatomical localization of the obstruction and assess the severity of the ileus based on the diameter of the cecum. In addition, CT scans with intravenous contrast can often clarify the cause of ileus, identify signs of ischemia and help surgeons determine the stage of a potential tumor. This allows the treatment strategy and its timing to be planned more effectively (5) [4]. CT scans can be supplemented with contrast enema to further clarify the completeness of the stenosis. Therefore, CT scan appears to be superior to conventional x-ray imaging (6) [2B].

 Acute surgical treatment

The treatment strategy for colonic obstruction should be determined by a colorectal surgeon. Surgical resection should be performed with the participation of a colorectal surgeon (B).

If possible, treatment of colonic obstruction should be performed during the day and with the participation of a colorectal surgeon. The morbidity, mortality and anastomotic leakage rates are likely to be lower when surgery is performed by an experienced colorectal surgeon (7–11) [2A–B]. Long-term survival after emergency colorectal resection for cancer is also likely related to surgeon subspecialization (7, 8, 12) [2A–B]. A Swedish registry study failed to demonstrate differences in survival between patients treated by emergency surgeons and those treated by colorectal surgeons but the registry study still showed an increased rate of permanent stomas in patients operated on by emergency surgeons (13) [2B].

The following treatment modalities for colonic obstruction are equivalent in terms of survival: stenting, colonic stoma placement and resection with or without primary anastomosis (A).

The treatment strategy for obstructing colorectal cancer depends on the patient's clinical condition and tumor location. Emergency surgery for colon cancer is still associated with high 30- and 90-day mortality rates. In a Swedish report from 2014, the 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 8.2 and 14.9%, respectively (14) [2B], while the Danish 30-day mortality, in emergency setting, in a DCCG theme report from 2018 was 12%.

In the case of acute resection, both morbidity and mortality are higher than those of elective resection (14) [2B], and there is a greater risk of colostomy (15) [1B]. Changing from emergency to elective surgery for the treatment of acute colonic obstruction without perforation seems to be desirable. This approach will enable preoperative staging, optimization and planning of the procedure. Patients with metastatic cancer without signs of bowel perforation can be spared surgery.

Colonic stenting for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction

There are a large number of publications on short-term outcomes after decompression via self-expandable metallic stenting in the colon accounting for the feasibility of procedure. According to a 2017 meta-analysis of 448 patients from seven randomized trials comparing stenting as a bridge to surgery and emergency colon resection for left-sided colorectal cancer, the stent group had lower rates of permanent stoma and lower morbidity. Patients receiving primary anastomosis in the stent group accounted for 71.7% vs. 55.3% in acute resection group (RR 1.27 95pct. CI (0.98–1.64). There was no difference in mortality or anastomotic leakage rate (16) [1A]. Similar results have been reported from other meta-analyses of randomized trials (17–20) [1A].

A retrospective study comparing results after self-expanding metallic stents vs. stoma decompression exhibited financial savings and shorter hospitalization times in the stent group but no difference in the clinical success rate in terms of obstruction resolution (21) [3B]. A recent randomized English study of colon cancer patients presenting with colonic obstruction requiring stenting showed no difference in morbidity, mortality, or 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) between patients treated with stents and patients treated with acute resection or stoma placement (22) [1B]. However, another recent meta-analysis of randomized trials showed significantly lower permanent stoma rates in the stenting group than in the acute resection group. Moreover, significantly lower morbidity but not significantly lower mortality was shown (23) [1A].

According to a Cochrane meta-analysis, stent-related complications were described as acceptable (stent-related perforation 5.8%, stent migration 2.1% and stent obstruction 2.1%) (24) [1A]. A more recent Danish study reported a stent perforation rate of 8.9 (25) [2B]. In a systematic review of 82 studies (2,287 patients), Datye et al. (26) [3A] failed to observe a significant difference in perforation rates between patients who underwent stenting in a palliative setting and patients who underwent bridging to surgery. The overall perforation rate was 4.9%, approximately half of which occurred in the first 24 h. The risk factors for perforation were chemotherapy, radiotherapy and glucocorticoid therapy. The mortality rate among patients with perforation was 16.2%. The degree of obstruction should be taken into account when evaluating perforation risk. A retrospective review of 130 patients reported that the perforation rate is associated with the angle of stenosis (27) [2B], a factor that should also be considered before stent placement. Three randomized trials from 2008–2011 described asymptomatic perforation rates ranging from 6%–27% (28–30) [1A], which has raised concerns about the long-term outcomes of the placement of a metallic stent as a bridge to surgery. In addition to the risk of perforation, colon cancer stenting may theoretically have other oncological disadvantages due to pressure on the tumor. A 2021 meta-analysis by Balciscueta et al. found an increased incidence of perineural ingrowth and lymphatic vessel ingrowth in patients who underwent stenting as a bridge to surgery compared to that in patients who underwent urgent resection (31) [2A]. The same author's 2020 meta-analysis found increased local recurrence rates in patients with stent-related perforation but no difference in 3- or 5-year survival (32) [2A]. On the other hand, another retrospective study from Italy showed no difference in perineural ingrowth between stented vs. primarily resected tumors (33) [2B]. Other recent studies also failed to demonstrate lower long-term survival with stenting than with emergency surgery. Two Spanish studies showed no difference in 3-year DFS (34, 35) [2B]. Thus, the data are inconclusive, and no conclusion can currently be drawn on long-term survival.

 Colonic stenting for right-sided malignant colonic obstruction

Recent retrospective studies have shown similar morbidity and mortality for right-sided stenting vs. emergency surgery, as well as a lower rate of stoma formation (36) [3B]. A systematic review of 14 cohort studies from 2015 reported less overall morbidity and mortality for stenting than for emergency resection of acute right-sided colonic obstruction and a lower rate of stoma formation (37) [2A]. This was confirmed in new meta-analyses from 2022 (38) [2A] and 2021 (39) [2A]. Stenting of colonic tumors proximal to the splenic flexure can thus be performed at centers where expertise is available.

The optimal timing of surgery after stenting has not been well described, but evidence suggests that surgery should be performed as soon as possible after the patient's condition has stabilized and the necessary assessment has been performed. The ESGE guidelines recommend surgery approximately 14 days after stent placement (40). This finding is supported by a Danish study that showed that increased recurrence rates were associated with long intervals between stent placement and surgery (41) [2B].

 Decompressing stoma

A meta-analysis of 8 studies comparing temporary stoma placement vs. emergency surgical resection found no difference in 30-day morbidity or mortality, which was approximately 7% for both groups. There were fewer permanent stomas in the decompressing stoma group (42) [2A]. Due to concerns about long-term outcomes after stenting as a bridge to surgery, there has been a focus on this topic in recent years. A 2016 cohort study comparing stents vs. stomas as a bridge to resection found fewer required procedures and lower long-term morbidity (primarily due to herniation) in the stent group (43) [2B] but otherwise comparable outcomes. A more recent meta-analysis from 2022 comparing stents vs. stomas showed no difference in 3-year overall survival (OS), perioperative mortality or permanent stoma rates. However, there were fewer Clavien‒Dindo 1–2 complications in the stent group but similar Clavien‒Dindo 3–4 complications in both groups, and there was no difference in the permanent stoma rate (44). Another meta-analysis from 2021 comprising 48 studies, including 8 randomized studies, examined 5-year OS with stenting or stoma placement as a bridge to surgery. A significantly higher 5-year OS was associated with stoma placement than with stenting, but conversely, stoma placement was associated with a longer hospitalization time (45). Therefore, decompressing stoma placement cannot be dismissed as a good alternative to stenting as a bridge to surgery. This should especially be considered in patients with long remaining life expectancies.

 Emergency resection

For right-sided colonic obstruction (acute obstructing tumors orally to the splenic flexure) without feculent peritonitis, right-sided hemicolectomy with primary ileocolic anastomosis can be safely performed in selected patients. In Denmark, the leakage rate after acute colonic resection is 2.8%, according to the DCCG annual report from 2012 (1) [2C]. The anastomotic leakage rate has been reported to be between 2.5 and 5.2% in retrospective studies of acute right-sided colon resection (46, 47) [2B]. For left-sided colonic obstruction (acute obstructing tumors in or anally to the splenic flexure), primary resection can be performed with an anastomosis with manual emptying of the dilated colon orally to the tumor. In a systematic review, Kam et al. reported a significantly higher anastomotic leakage rate (7%) in patients who underwent antegrade lavage than in those who underwent manual emptying (1%). There was a significantly higher 30-day mortality after antegrade irrigation (7.2% vs. 1%) (48) [2A]. Hartmann's operation is a preferred surgical strategy for patients at high risk of anastomotic leakage. Colectomy can be performed for severely distended and damaged colons or in the presence of synchronous colon tumors (49) [2A].

In palliative treatment of colonic obstruction, stenting is the first choice where technically feasible (B).

With stent placement, patients with metastatic disease avoid a stoma and the following reduced quality of life. Meisner et al. (50) [2B] demonstrated a 98.4% technical success rate, 87.8% clinical success rate and low complication rate (perforation 5.1%, migration 5.5%) in a prospective multicenter study of stenting in a palliative setting. The mortality rate was less than 2% (two patients died—one after 24 days and one after 34 days). The risk of perforation seems to be an unresolved issue. A Dutch randomized trial comparing acute resection with stenting for palliation of mechanical ileus in patients with metastatic colon cancer was stopped early due to a high rate of stent-related perforations (6 perforations out of 11 stents placed) (28) [1B]. This perforation rate has however not been reported in general.

Bevacizumab treatment has previously been reported to be a risk factor for bowel perforation, and a retrospective study from 2015 suggested a higher risk of perforation with stent treatment in patients treated with this drug (51) [3A]. The most common problem with stent as palliation is migration. Stent migration has an incidence of up to 10.5% (52) [2A]. Migration can be related to treatment with palliative chemotherapy (as the response triggered by treatment can result in tumor shrinkage) or to stent type and diameter. Migration rates are expected to increase with longer survival due to more effective palliative chemotherapy. However, a study comparing palliative treatment with stoma vs. stent treatment suggested a greater likelihood of discharge to home with stent treatment (53) [2B]. In a randomized trial between stents and stomas, the hospital length of stay was shorter, and the quality of life was higher in stent-treated patients (54) [1B]. Stenting is therefore a recommended choice for the palliative treatment of stenosing colon cancer.

Patients with colorectal cancer and colon perforation are frequently severely septic. The initiation of medical treatment for hypotension, metabolic acidosis and infection is recommended as soon as possible, as the severity of sepsis has a major impact on patient mortality and morbidity (C).

Primary oncologic resection of the bowel is recommended as the first surgical choice. If the patient's physiological condition, comorbidities and tumor location put them at high risk of anastomotic leakage, primary resection and stoma placement are recommended. A double lumen stoma (loop or split stoma) is recommended because it increases the possibility of closure (B).

Colonic perforation, a complication of obstructive colorectal cancer, is associated with high morbidity and mortality (55) [4]. The incidence of perioperative mortality was reported to be between 5% and 19% in a retrospective US study (56) [2b]. Perforation can be categorized as perforation of the colon proximal to the obstructing tumor site due to distention or perforation of the tumor itself. In the case of perforation of the tumor itself, abscess formation and local peritonitis may occur. Furthermore, studies suggest that tumor perforation is an independent risk factor for the development of peritoneal carcinomatosis (57, 58) [3b-3a].

Perforation of the colon proximal to the tumor frequently results in fecal peritonitis and severe septic conditions, which require urgent surgical intervention to control contamination and septic shock (59) [3b]. Sepsis severity has a major impact on postoperative mortality in patients with colorectal cancer and colon perforation (60) [3b]. It is therefore important to treat patients’ hypotension, metabolic acidosis and systemic inflammatory response as soon as possible. In the UK, a targeted intervention with “sepsis packages” has been shown to significantly reduce mortality (61).

There are various surgical options for patients with tumor perforation. Oncologic resection is recommended. The choice between primary anastomosis or stoma should depend on the degree of contamination, the patient's physiological condition,sepsis, comorbidity [American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score] and tumor location. There is generally a higher risk of anastomotic leakage in acute surgery (59, 62) [3a]. Stoma placement should therefore be chosen for patients who are at high risk of postoperative anastomotic leakage and is expected in a higher proportion of emergency patients. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage include age, male sex, an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score >3, smoking status, diabetes status and a serum ALB concentration <4 g/dl (63) [2c]. Double-lumen stoma (loop or split stoma) is preferred, as it makes later stoma reversal more likely (56, 58, 59) [3b]. The fact that stomas that develop during emergency surgery have a lower probability of being closed should be taken into account (56) [3b]. For perforation of the coecum in the presence of right-sided colon tumors, right-sided hemicolectomy with ileocolic anastomosis or ileostomy is recommended. In the case of cecal perforation and a tumor located in the left colon, subtotal colectomy is recommended. If the perforation was in the left colon and the tumor was in the same location, left-sided hemicolectomy with primary anastomosis was recommended. Alternatively, Hartman's operation can be performed (58, 59) [3b].

 Author contributions

MM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TA: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. UL: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

 Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 References IversenLHLundhusEThygesenKStøvringJRoikjærORosenstockS Danish Colorectal Cancer Group Annual Report. (2012). Available online at: https://dccg.dk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Aarsrapport_2012.pdf (accessed November 13, 2024). MaloneyNVargasHD. Acute intestinal pseudo-obstruction (Ogilvie’s syndrome). Clin Colon Rectal Surg. (2005) 18(2):96–101. 10.1055/s-2005-87089020011348 VogelJDFelderSIBhamaARHawkinsATLangenfeldSJShafferVO The American society of colon and rectal surgeons clinical practice guidelines for the management of colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. (2022) 65(2):148–77. 10.1097/DCR.000000000000232334775402 BeattieGCPetersRTGuySMendelsonRM. Computed tomography in the assessment of suspected large bowel obstruction. ANZ J Surg. (2007) 77(3):160–5. 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2006.03998.x17305992 AufortSCharraLLesnikABruelJMTaourelP. Multidetector CT of bowel obstruction: value of post-processing. Eur Radiol. (2005) 15(11):2323–9. 10.1007/s00330-005-2733-x15834573 ChapmanAHMcNamaraMPorterG. The acute contrast enema in suspected large bowel obstruction: value and technique. Clin Radiol. (1992) 46(4):273–8. 10.1016/S0009-9260(05)80170-91424452 RosanderEHolmTSjövallAHjernFWeibullCENordenvallC. The impact of hospital volume on survival in patients with locally advanced colonic cancer. BJS Open. (2022) 6(6):zrac140. 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac14036417311 DiersJWagnerJBaumPLichthardtSKastnerCMatthesN Nationwide in-hospital mortality following colonic cancer resection according to hospital volume in Germany. BJS Open. (2019) 3(5):672–7. 10.1002/bjs5.5017331592096 ZorcoloLCovottaLCarlomagnoNBartoloDC. Toward lowering morbidity, mortality, and stoma formation in emergency colorectal surgery: the role of specialization. Dis Colon Rectum. (2003) 46(11):1461–7. discussion 7–8. 10.1007/s10350-004-6793-914605562 KaranicolasPJDuboisLColquhounPHSwallowCJWalterSDGuyattGH. The more the better?: the impact of surgeon and hospital volume on in-hospital mortality following colorectal resection. Ann Surg. (2009) 249(6):954–9. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a77bcd19474684 LenziJLombardiRGoriDZaniniNTedescoDMasettiM Impact of procedure volumes and focused practice on short-term outcomes of elective and urgent colon cancer resection in Italy. PLoS One. (2013) 8(5):e64245. 10.1371/journal.pone.006424523696873 ArchampongDBorowskiDWille-JørgensenPIversenLH. Workload and surgeon’s specialty for outcome after colorectal cancer surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2012) (3):CD005391. 10.1002/14651858.CD005391.pub322419309 ArnarsonÖSykIButtST. Who should operate patients presenting with emergent colon cancer? A comparison of short- and long-term outcome depending on surgical sub-specialization. World J Emerg Surg. (2023) 18(1):3. 10.1186/s13017-023-00474-y36624451 GunnarssonHJennischeKForssellSGranströmJJestinPEkholmA Heterogeneity of colon cancer patients reported as emergencies. World J Surg. (2014) 38(7):1819–26. 10.1007/s00268-014-2449-724449413 Martinez-SantosCLobatoRFFradejasJMPintoIOrtega-DeballónPMoreno-AzcoitaM. 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. (2002) 45(3):401–6. 10.1007/s10350-004-6190-412068202 AllieviNCeresoliMFugazzolaPMontoriGCoccoliniFAnsaloniL. Endoscopic stenting as bridge to surgery vs. emergency resection for left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction: an updated meta-analysis. Int J Surg Oncol. (2017) 2017:2863272. 10.1155/2017/286327228761765 HuangXLvBZhangSMengL. Preoperative colonic stents versus emergency surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. (2014) 18(3):584–91. 10.1007/s11605-013-2344-924170606 ArezzoAPasseraRLo SeccoGVerraMBoninoMATargaronaE 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. (2017) 86(3):416–26. 10.1016/j.gie.2017.03.154228392363 CirocchiRFarinellaETrastulliSDesiderioJListortiCBoselliC 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. (2013) 22(1):14–21. 10.1016/j.suronc.2012.10.00323183301 CennamoVLuigianoCCoccoliniFFabbriCBassiMDe CaroG Meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing endoscopic stenting and surgical decompression for colorectal cancer obstruction. Int J Colorectal Dis. (2013) 28(6):855–63. 10.1007/s00384-012-1599-z23151813 VaradarajuluSRoyALopesTDrelichmanERKimM. Endoscopic stenting versus surgical colostomy for the management of malignant colonic obstruction: comparison of hospital costs and clinical outcomes. Surg Endosc. (2011) 25(7):2203–9. 10.1007/s00464-010-1523-y21293882 GroupCC. Colorectal endoscopic stenting trial (CReST) for obstructing left-sided colorectal cancer: randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg. (2022) 109(11):1073–80. 10.1093/bjs/znac14135986684 CirocchiRArezzoASapienzaPCrocettiDCavaliereDSolainiL 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. Medicina. (2021) 57(3):268. 10.3390/medicina5703026833804232 SagarJ. Colorectal stents for the management of malignant colonic obstructions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2011) 2011(11):CD007378. 10.1002/14651858.CD007378.pub222071835 KobborgMBroholmMFrostbergEJeppesenMGögenürI. Short-term results of self-expanding metal stents for acute malignant large bowel obstruction. Colorectal Dis. (2017) 19(10):O365–O71. 10.1111/codi.1388028892247 DatyeAHershJ. Colonic perforation after stent placement for malignant colorectal obstruction–causes and contributing factors. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. (2011) 20(3):133–40. 10.3109/13645706.2010.51878720929424 LeeJGYooKHKwonCIKoKHHongSP. Angular positioning of stent increases bowel perforation after self-expandable metal stent placement for malignant colorectal obstruction. Clin Endosc. (2013) 46(4):384–9. 10.5946/ce.2013.46.4.38423964336 van HooftJEFockensPMarinelliAWTimmerRvan BerkelAMBossuytPM Early closure of a multicenter randomized clinical trial of endoscopic stenting versus surgery for stage IV left-sided colorectal cancer. Endoscopy. (2008) 40(3):184–91. 10.1055/s-2007-99542618322873 van HooftJEBemelmanWAOldenburgBMarinelliAWLutke HolzikMFGrubbenMJ Colonic stenting versus emergency surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. (2011) 12(4):344–52. 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70035-321398178 PirletIASlimKKwiatkowskiFMichotFMillatBL. Emergency preoperative stenting versus surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. (2011) 25(6):1814–21. 10.1007/s00464-010-1471-621170659 BalciscuetaIBalciscuetaZUribeNGarcía-GraneroE. Perineural invasion is increased in patients receiving colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol. (2021) 25(2):167–76. 10.1007/s10151-020-02350-233200308 BalciscuetaIBalciscuetaZUribeNGarcía-GraneroE. Long-term outcomes of stent-related perforation in malignant colon obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. (2020) 35(8):1439–51. 10.1007/s00384-020-03664-132572603 TaminiNAngrisaniMAldèSNespoliLOldaniMBragaM Does preoperative stent positioning in obstructive left sided colon cancer increase the risk of perineural invasion? Updates Surg. (2021) 73(2):547–53. 10.1007/s13304-020-00962-933405211 Hidalgo-PujolMBiondoSDie TrillJVigoritaVPaniagua Garcia-SeñoransMPascual MigueláñezI Upfront surgery versus self-expanding metallic stent as bridge to surgery in left-sided colonic cancer obstruction: a multicenter observational study. Surgery. (2022) 172(1):74–82. 10.1016/j.surg.2021.12.03535168815 Mora-LópezLHidalgoMFalcóJSerra-PlaSPallisera-LloverasAGarcia-NaldaA Long-term outcomes of colonic stent as a “bridge to surgery” for left-sided malignant large-bowel obstruction. Surg Oncol. (2020) 35:399–405. 10.1016/j.suronc.2020.09.02533035788 AmelungFJDraaismaWAConstenECJSiersemaPDTer BorgF. Self-expandable metal stent placement versus emergency resection for malignant proximal colon obstructions. Surg Endosc. (2017) 31(11):4532–41. 10.1007/s00464-017-5512-228409374 AmelungFJde BeaufortHWSiersemaPDVerheijenPMConstenEC. Emergency resection versus bridge to surgery with stenting in patients with acute right-sided colonic obstruction: a systematic review focusing on mortality and morbidity rates. Int J Colorectal Dis. (2015) 30(9):1147–55. 10.1007/s00384-015-2216-825935448 KanakaSMatsudaAYamadaTOhtaRSonodaHShinjiS Colonic stent as a bridge to surgery versus emergency resection for right-sided malignant large bowel obstruction: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. (2022) 36(5):2760–70. 10.1007/s00464-022-09071-735113211 BoedingJRERamphalWRijkenAMCrollaRMPHVerhoefCGobardhanPD A systematic review comparing emergency resection and staged treatment for curable obstructing right-sided colon cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. (2021) 28(7):3545–55. 10.1245/s10434-020-09124-y33067743 van HooftJEVeldJVArnoldDBeets-TanRGHEverettSGötzM Self-expandable metal stents for obstructing colonic and extracolonic cancer: European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) guideline—update 2020. Endoscopy. (2020) 52(5):389–407. 10.1055/a-1140-301732259849 BroholmMKobborgMFrostbergEJeppesenMGögenürI. Delay of surgery after stent placement for resectable malignant colorectal obstruction is associated with higher risk of recurrence. Int J Colorectal Dis. (2017) 32(4):513–6. 10.1007/s00384-016-2705-427853888 AmelungFJMulderCLVerheijenPMDraaismaWASiersemaPDConstenEC. Acute resection versus bridge to surgery with diverting colostomy for patients with acute malignant left sided colonic obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Oncol. (2015) 24(4):313–21. 10.1016/j.suronc.2015.10.00326690820 AmelungFJTer BorgFConstenECSiersemaPDDraaismaWA. Deviating colostomy construction versus stent placement as bridge to surgery for malignant left-sided colonic obstruction. Surg Endosc. (2016) 30(12):5345–55. 10.1007/s00464-016-4887-927071927 ZhangJZhuHYangWLiuXZhangDJiangX Endoscopic stent vs. diverting stoma as a bridge to surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. (2022) 407(8):3275–85. 10.1007/s00423-022-02517-535666309 TanLLiuZLRanMNTangLHPuYJLiuYL Comparison of the prognosis of four different treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. World J Emerg Surg. (2021) 16(1):11. 10.1186/s13017-021-00355-233736680 HsuTC. Comparison of one-stage resection and anastomosis of acute complete obstruction of left and right colon. Am J Surg. (2005) 189(4):384–7. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.06.04615820447 LeeYMLawWLChuKWPoonRT. Emergency surgery for obstructing colorectal cancers: a comparison between right-sided and left-sided lesions. J Am Coll Surg. (2001) 192(6):719–25. 10.1016/S1072-7515(01)00833-X11400965 KamMHTangCLChanELimJFEuKW. Systematic review of intraoperative colonic irrigation vs. manual decompression in obstructed left-sided colorectal emergencies. Int J Colorectal Dis. (2009) 24(9):1031–7. 10.1007/s00384-009-0723-119415306 GainantA. Emergency management of acute colonic cancer obstruction. J Visc Surg. (2012) 149(1):e3–e10. 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2011.11.00322189474 MeisnerSGonzález-HuixFVandervoortJGRepiciAXinopoulosDGrundKE Self-expanding metal stenting for palliation of patients with malignant colonic obstruction: effectiveness and efficacy on 255 patients with 12-month’s follow-up. Gastroenterol Res Pract. (2012) 2012:296347. 10.1155/2012/29634722761609 ImbulgodaAMacLeanAHeineJDroletSVickersMM. Colonic perforation with intraluminal stents and bevacizumab in advanced colorectal cancer: retrospective case series and literature review. Can J Surg. (2015) 58(3):167–71. 10.1503/cjs.01301425799132 De CeglieAFilibertiRBaronTHCeppiMConioM. A meta-analysis of endoscopic stenting as bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer obstruction. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. (2013) 88(2):387–403. 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2013.06.00623845505 AbelsonJSYeoHLMaoJMilsomJWSedrakyanA. Long-term postprocedural outcomes of palliative emergency stenting vs. stoma in malignant large-bowel obstruction. JAMA Surg. (2017) 152(5):429–35. 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.504328097296 YoungCJDe-LoydeKJYoungJMSolomonMJChewEHByrneCM Improving quality of life for people with incurable large-bowel obstruction: randomized control trial of colonic stent insertion. Dis Colon Rectum. (2015) 58(9):838–49. 10.1097/DCR.000000000000043126252845 TzivanakisAMoranBJ. Perforated colorectal cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. (2020) 33(5):247–52. 10.1055/s-0040-171374132968359 ZielinskiMDMercheaAHellerSFYouYN. Emergency management of perforated colon cancers: how aggressive should we be? J Gastrointest Surg. (2011) 15(12):2232–8. 10.1007/s11605-011-1674-821913040 HonoréCGoéréDSouadkaADumontFEliasD. Definition of patients presenting a high risk of developing peritoneal carcinomatosis after curative surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. (2013) 20(1):183–92. 10.1245/s10434-012-2473-5 PisanoMZorcoloLMerliCCimbanassiSPoiasinaECeresoliM 2017 WSES guidelines on colon and rectal cancer emergencies: obstruction and perforation. World J Emerg Surg. (2018) 13:36. 10.1186/s13017-018-0192-330123315 MillerASBoyceKBoxBClarkeMDDuffSEFoleyNM The association of coloproctology of great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in emergency colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. (2021) 23(2):476–547. 10.1111/codi.1550333470518 KrutsriCSumpritpraditPSinghatasPThampongsaTPhuwapraisirisanSGesprasertG Morbidity, mortality, and risk factors of emergency colorectal surgery among older patients in the acute care surgery service: a retrospective study. Ann Med Surg. (2021) 62:485–9. 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.11.001 DanielsRNutbeamTMcNamaraGGalvinC. The sepsis six and the severe sepsis resuscitation bundle: a prospective observational cohort study. Emerg Med J. (2011) 28(6):507–12. 10.1136/emj.2010.09506721036796 TelokenPESpilsburyKLevittMMakinGSalamaPTanP Outcomes in patients undergoing urgent colorectal surgery. ANZ J Surg. (2014) 84(12):960–4. 10.1111/ans.1258024697968 ParthasarathyMGreensmithMBowersDGroot-WassinkT. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after colorectal resection: a retrospective analysis of 17 518 patients. Colorectal Dis. (2017) 19(3):288–98. 10.1111/codi.1347627474844