Endoscopic stent versus diverting stoma as a bridge to surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), an alternative to diverting stoma (DS), has been used as a “bridge to surgery” (BTS) to decompress acute obstruction of colorectal cancer (CRC) for decades. However, whether SEMS is a safe technique for obstruction of CRC without compromising the long-term survival of patients remains unidentified compared to those of DS. The aim of the present study was to elucidate the safety and survival outcomes of SEMS and DS. METHODS: Embase, PubMed, and Medline were searched for qualified studies published until October, 2020, in which SEMS or DS was performed as a BTS without resection at the same stage. The last search was on December 5th, 2020. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of included studies. The major complication rate, mortality, 3-year overall survival (OS), and permanent stoma rate were estimated as outcomes. RESULTS: The present study was registered on INPLASY (No. 2020100079). Seven eligible studies were included, involving 646 and 712 patients who underwent SEMS and DS treatments, respectively. The Clavien-Dindo I/II grade complication rate was significantly lower in the SEMS group than in the DS group (8.68 vs. 16.85%; RR, 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41–0.84; P = 0.004). The Clavien-Dindo III/IV grade complication rate was comparable in two groups (7.69 vs. 8.79%; RR, 0.82; 95% CI 0.54–1.27; P = 0.37). There were no statistical differences in the short-term mortality (5.16 vs. 4.53%; RR, 1.25; 95% CI 0.75–2.08; P = 0.39), 3-year OS (71.91 vs. 76.60%; RR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.86–1.01; P = 0.10), and permanent stoma rate (22.08 vs. 27.54%; RR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.67–1.06; P = 0.14) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: To some extent, SEMS is a safe BTS technique for acute obstructive CRC, without significant adverse effect on the survival of patients. Given the advantage of minimal invasion, SEMS may be a better alternative to DS for obstructive CRC. However, the conclusions remain to be discussed because of lacking high-quality randomized controlled trails. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-022-02517-5.