Research Article
The Safety and Efficiency of Surgery with Colonic Stents in Left-Sided Malignant Colonic Obstruction: A Meta-Analysis
Table 2
Characteristics and main analytical parameters.
| (a) |
| | Author | Country | Year | Research type | Sample size |
Age |
Gender (number) |
Group (number) | | SEMS | Emergency surgery | Male | Female | SEMS | Emergency surgery |
| | Cheung et al. [2] | China | 2009 | Randomized control | 48 | 64.5 (39–68) | 68.5 (27–86) | 26 | 22 | 24 | 24 | | van Hooft et al. [5] | Netherlands | 2011 | Randomized control | 98 | 70.4 (11.9) | 71.4 (9.7) | 51 | 47 | 47 | 51 | | Pirlet et al. [4] | France | 2011 | Randomized control | 60 | 70.4 (10.3) | 74.7 (30) | 29 | 31 | 30 | 30 | | Alcántara et al. [1] | Spain | 2011 | Randomized control | 28 | 71.9 (8.96) | 71.2 (9.0) | 12 | 16 | 15 | 13 | | Ho et al. [3] | Singapore | 2012 | Randomized control | 39 | 68 (51–85) | 65 (49–84) | 22 | 17 | 20 | 19 |
|
|
| (b) |
| | Author | Number and success rate of stent installation | Surgical procedure | Primary anastomotic rate | Rate of anastomotic leak | | SEMS | Emergency | SEMS | Emergency |
| | Cheung et al. [2] | 20 (83.0) | Semielective laparoscopic surgery after SEMS versus emergency laparotomy | 83.3% | 54% | 0% | 8.3% | | van Hooft et al. [5] | 33 (70.0) | Semielective laparotomy after SEMS versus emergency laparotomy | 44.7% | 23.5% | 10.7% | 1.9% | | Pirlet et al. [4] | 14 (47.0) | Semielective laparotomy after SEMS versus emergency laparotomy | 73.3% | 46.7% | 6.7% | 6.7% | | Alcántara et al. [1] | 15 (100.0) | Semielective one-stage laparotomy after SEMS versus emergency one-stage laparotomy with intestinal lavage | 93.3% | 100% | 0% | 30.8% | | Ho et al. [3] | 14 (70.0) | Semielective laparotomy or laparoscopy after SEMS versus emergency laparotomy | 100% | 100% | 5.0% | 0% |
|
|
| (c) |
| | Author |
Overall colostomy rate |
Permanent colostomy rate |
Overall rate of complication |
Postoperative mortality within 30 days | SSI |
Rate of pulmonary infection | | SEMS | Emergency | SEMS | Emergency | SEMS | Emergency | SEMS | Emergency | SEMS | Emergency | SEMS | Emergency |
| | Cheung et al. [2] | 33.3% | 62.5% | 0% | 25.0% | 8.3% | 70.8% | 0% | 0% | 8.3% | 37.5% | 0% | 4.2% | | van Hooft et al. [5] | 61.7% | 76.5% | 57.5% | 66.7% | 53.2% | 45.1% | 10.7% | 9.8% | 6.4% | 7.9% | 6.4% | 2.0% | | Pirlet et al. [4] | 43.3% | 56.7% | 30.0% | 26.7% | 50.0% | 56.7% | 10.0% | 3.3% | 13.3% | 13.3% | 3.3% | 10% | | Alcántara et al. [1] | 6.7% | 30.8% | 6.7% | 30.8% | 13.3% | 53.9% | 0% | 7.7% | 13.3% | 46.2% | 0% | 0% | | Ho et al. [3] | 30.0% | 10.5% | 10.0% | 5.3% | 35.0% | 57.9% | 0% | 15.8% | 15.0% | 21.1% | 10% | 10.5% |
|
|
