A retrospective cohort study of intra-corporeal versus extra-corporeal anastomosis for right hemicolectomy with cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare outcomes and cost effectiveness of extra-corporeal anastomosis (ECA) versus intra-corporeal anastomosis (ICA) for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme data. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer from January 2018 to December 2022 were identified. Non-cancer diagnoses, emergency procedures or synchronous resection of other organs were excluded. Surgical characteristics, peri-operative outcomes, long-term survival and hospitalisation costs were compared. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 223 patients (175 ECA, 48 ICA) were included in the analysis. Both cohorts exhibited comparable baseline patient, comorbidity, and tumour characteristics. Distribution of pathological TMN stage, tumour largest dimension, total lymph node harvest and resection margin lengths were statistically similar. ICA was associated with a longer median operative duration compared with ECA (255 min vs. 220 min, P < 0.001). There was a quicker time to gastrointestinal recovery, with a shorter median hospital stay in the ICA group (4.0 versus 5.0 days, P = 0.001). Overall complication rates were comparable. ICA was associated with a higher surgical procedure cost (£6301.57 versus £4998.52, P < 0.001), but lower costs for ward accommodation (£1679.05 versus £2420.15, P = 0.001) and treatment (£3774.55 versus £4895.14, P = 0.009), with a 4.5% reduced overall cost compared with ECA. The ICER of -£3323.58 showed ICA to be more cost effective than ECA, across a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: ICA in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is associated with quicker post-operative recovery and may be more cost effective compared with ECA, despite increased operative costs.

Risk of recurrence in high-risk T1 colon cancer following endoscopic and surgical resection: registry-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection of T1 colon cancer (CC) is currently limited by guidelines related to risk of lymph node metastases. However, clinical outcome following endoscopic and surgical resection is poorly investigated. METHOD: A retrospective multicentre national cohort study was conducted on prospectively collected data from the Swedish colorectal cancer registry on all non-pedunculated T1 CC patients undergoing surgical and endoscopic resection between 2009 and 2021. Patients were categorized on the basis of deep submucosal invasion (Sm2-3), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), poor tumour differentiation, and R1/Rx into low- and high-risk cases. The primary outcomes of interest were recurrence rates and disease-free interval (DFI, defined as time from treatment to date of recurrence) according to resection methods and risk factors (sex, age at diagnosis, histologic grade, LVI, perineural invasion, mucinous subtype, submucosal invasion, tumour location, resection margin and nodal positivity in the surgical group). RESULTS: In total, 1805 patients undergoing endoscopic (488) and surgical (1317) resection with 60.0 months median follow-up were included. Recurrence occurred in 18 (3.7%) endoscopically and 48 (3.6%) surgically resected patients. Adjuvant treatment was administered in 7.4% and 0.2% of the cases respectively in the surgical and endoscopically treated patients. Five-year DFI was 95.6% after endoscopic and 96.2% after surgical resection, with no significant difference when adjusting for confounding factors (HR 1.03, 95% c.i. 0.56 to 1.91, P = 0.920). There were no statistically significant differences in recurrence comparing endoscopic (1.7%) versus surgical (3.6%) low-risk and endoscopic (5.4%) versus surgical (3.8%) high-risk cases. LVI was the only significant risk factor for recurrence in multivariate Cox regression (HR 3.73, 95% c.i. 1.76 to 7.92, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows no difference in recurrence after endoscopic and surgical resection in high-risk T1 CC. Although it was not possible to match groups according to treatment, the multivariate analysis showed that lymphovascular invasion was the only independent risk factor for recurrence.

ARHGAP4 as a Prognostic Biomarker for Colon Liver Metastases After Surgical Resection.

BACKGROUND/AIM: To select and stratify patients for optimal treatment plans is challenging. Identification of cancer-related biomarkers that serve as predictors for prognosis and treatment response is essential to better predict treatment outcome and find future targets for therapy. Previous data has suggested ARHGAP4 as a relevant biomarker in colorectal cancer (CRC). The purpose of this study was to assess how ARHGAP4 expression affected patients undergoing surgery for colon liver metastasis (CLM) in terms of overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 251 patients undergoing resection of CLM from 2006 to 2017 were included. Corresponding resected tumor specimens were examined for ARHGAP4 expression levels by immunohistochemistry (IHC). The correlation between ARHGAP4 expression and postoperative survival was analyzed. RESULTS: High expression levels of ARHGAP4 were seen in 60% of patients. High expression levels of ARHGAP4 were correlated with adverse prognosis after hepatectomy due to CLM. Survival data generated using Cox proportional hazard model showed a statistically significant difference between high and low ARHGAP4 expression groups by univariate (HR=1.5, 95% CI=1.1-2.2) and multivariate (HR=1.5, 95% CI=1.0-2.1) analysis. In multivariate Cox regression, high ARHGAP4 expression, preoperative CEA levels and presence of vascular invasion by pathological examinations were independent predictive factors of overall survival. CONCLUSION: ARHGAP4 is a novel prognostic biomarker after resection of CLM.

Characterizing colon lipomas: Insights from a retrospective analysis of clinical presentation and management strategies.

This retrospective study aims to examine the characteristics and treatment approaches of colon lipomas, which are benign tumors found in the colon. We analyzed a cohort of 25 patients, focusing on demographic characteristics, clinical presentation, location and size of the lipoma, concomitant pathologies, and treatment methods. The average age of the patients was 67.3 years, with 36% being male and 64% female. The majority of lipomas were located in the ascending colon (52%), and their median size was 2 cm. The predominant presenting symptom was constipation, affecting 83.3% of the symptomatic patients. Surgical resection was undertaken in only 1 patient due to obstruction. Statistically significant differences were observed between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients regarding various parameters, including the size of the lipoma (P = .033). Colon lipomas are generally benign and frequently asymptomatic but may necessitate different treatment approaches depending on their size, location, and the presence of symptoms. Further studies are imperative to refine treatment strategies and enhance patient care outcomes.

Prognostic factors and survival disparities in right-sided versus left-sided colon cancer.

Right-sided colon cancer (RCC) and left-sided colon cancer (LCC) differ in features and outcomes because of variations in embryology, epidemiology, pathology, and prognosis. This study sought to identify significant factors impacting patient survival through Bayesian modelling. Data was retrospectively analysed from a colorectal neoplasia database. Data on demographics, perioperative risks, treatment, mortality, and survival was analysed from patients who underwent colon cancer surgery from January 2010 to December 2021. This study involved 2475 patients, with 58.7% having RCC and 41.3% having LCC. RCC patients had a notably higher mortality rate, and their overall survival (OS) rates were slightly lower than those with LCC (P < 0.05). RCC stages I-IV consistently exhibited worse OS and relapse-free survival (RFS) than LCC (P < 0.05). Factors like age, BMI, ASA score, cancer stage, and comorbidities had significant associations with OS and RFS. Poor and moderate differentiation, lower lymph node yield, and organ resection were linked to lower survival while receiving chemotherapy; higher BMI levels and elective surgery were associated with better survival (all P < 0.05). Our study reveals key differences between RCC and LCC, emphasising the impact of age, BMI, ASA score, cancer stage, and comorbidities on patient survival. These findings could inform personalised treatment strategies for colon cancer patients.

Conventional surgery in colon cancer with comparison to complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation: initial experience in a tertiary centre.

INTRODUCTION: The complete mesocolic excision (CME) and central vascular ligation (CVL) is an advanced surgical technique used to treat colon cancer. It combines the removal of the affected portion of the colon and surrounding lymph nodes with an improved method of controlling the vascular supply to the tumour. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of patients with colon cancer underwent right hemicolectomy (either CME and CVL or conventional method) were operated by colorectal surgeons in a tertiary centre in Kuala Lumpur from 2018 to 2020. We review the data to compare the oncological, pathological and surgical outcomes of both techniques. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages. Continuous variables were compared using an independent t-test or Mann-Whitney Rank U test. The chi-square test was used to determine the association between categorical variables and mortality. Statistical analysis was conducted with IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0, and statistical significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients (CME and CVL=15 or conventional colectomies=15) were included in this study with mean age of 65 years. There was no statistical difference between the mean age of the two groups (p=0.355). Most of the patients were Malays (46.7%) followed by Chinese (43.3 %) and Indians (10.0%). The mean (SD) = 19 (9) number of lymph nodes harvested is more in CME and CVL groups which however is not statistically significant compared to the mean (SD) = 16 (9), number of lymph nodes in conventional colectomies. The duration of surgery is longer in CME and CVL groups (214 minutes) compared to conventional colectomies (188 minutes) but with no significant statistical difference. Most of the perioperative complications were similar in both groups with no significant statistical differences. CONCLUSION: CME and CVL are not inferior to conventional surgery in colon surgery in a tertiary centre. It should be considered since the advantages such as lymph node yield and median recurrence free survival are better with similar perioperative morbidity.

Lymphatic spread patterns in young versus elderly patients with stage III colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: The anatomical pattern of lymph nodes spread differs between young (aged 45 years or younger) and elderly (aged 80 years or older) patients with stage III colon cancer and is poorly investigated. METHODS: Two groups of patients (young and elderly) with stage III colon cancer who underwent upfront extensive (D3) lymphadenectomy at eight Japanese centres between 1998 and 2018 were retrospectively analysed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of positive central lymph nodes. The lymph nodes spreading pattern and its prognostic impact on recurrence-free survival and overall survival in the two groups were also compared. RESULTS: Two hundred and ten young patients and 348 elderly patients were identified and compared. The total number of lymph nodes harvested and the total number of invaded lymph nodes were significantly higher in younger patients compared with elderly patients (median of 31.5 (3-151) versus 21 (3-116), P < 0.001 and median of 3 (1-21) versus 2 (1-25), P < 0.001 respectively). The proportion of positive central lymph nodes were higher in younger patients than in elderly patients (9.52% (95% c.i. 6.24 to 14.2%) versus 4.59% (95% c.i. 2.84 to 7.31%), P = 0.012). In multivariate models for recurrence-free survival, central lymph nodes invasion were identified as a poor prognostic factor in younger patients (HR 5.21 (95% c.i. 1.76 to 15.39)) but not in elderly patients (HR 1.73 (95% c.i. 0.80 to 3.76)). CONCLUSION: Young patients with stage III colon cancer have a higher risk of central lymph nodes invasion, suggesting a more aggressive disease biology. The presence of central lymph nodes invasion are associated with a worse outcome in young patients.

Short- and long-term outcome differences between patients undergoing left and right colon cancer surgery: cohort study.

PURPOSE: Since the literature currently provides controversial data on the postoperative outcomes following right and left hemicolectomies, we carried out this study to examine the short- and long-term treatment outcomes. METHODS: This study included consecutive patients who underwent right or left-sided colonic resections from year 2014 to 2018 and then they were followed up. The short-term outcomes such as postoperative morbidity and mortality according to Clavien-Dindo score, duration of hospital stay, and 90-day readmission rate were evaluated as well as long-term outcomes of overall survival and disease-free survival. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed of overall and progression-free survival. RESULTS: In total, 1107 patients with colon tumors were included in the study, 525 patients with right-sided tumors (RCC) and 582 cases with tumors in the left part of the colon (LCC). RCC group patients were older (P < 0.001), with a higher ASA score (P < 0.001), and with more cardiovascular comorbidities (P < 0.001). No differences were observed between groups in terms of postoperative outcomes such as morbidity and mortality, except 90-day readmission which was more frequent in the RCC group. Upon histopathological analysis, the RCC group's patients had more removed lymph nodes (29 ± 14 vs 20 ± 11, P = 0.001) and more locally progressed (pT3-4) tumors (85.4% versus 73.4%, P = 0.001). Significantly greater 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival (P = 0.001) were observed for patients in the LCC group, according to univariate Kaplan-Meier analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with right-sided colon cancer were older and had more advanced disease. Short-term surgical outcomes were similar, but patients in the LCC group resulted in better long-term outcomes.

The prognostic and predictive significance of perineural invasion in stage I to III colon cancer: a propensity score matching-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) presents with varying prognoses, and identifying factors for predicting metastasis and outcomes is crucial. Perineural invasion (PNI) is a debated prognostic factor for CRC, particularly in stage I-III patients, but its role in guiding adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive colon cancer remains uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a single-center study using data from the Colorectal Section Tumor Registry Database at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan. This prospective study involved 3,327 CRC patients, 1,536 of whom were eligible after application of the exclusion criteria, to investigate the prognostic value of PNI in stage I-III patients and its predictive value for node-positive/negative cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize selection bias, and follow-up was performed with standardized procedures. RESULTS: PNI-positive (PNI+) tumors were associated with higher preoperative CEA levels and more frequent adjuvant chemotherapy. After PSM, PNI + tumors were associated with marginally significantly lower 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and significantly lower overall survival (OS) rates in stages III CRC. However, no significant differences were observed in stages I and II. Subgroup analysis showed that among PNI + tumors, only poorly differentiated tumors had higher odds of recurrence. PNI did not predict outcomes in node-negative colon cancer. Adjuvant chemotherapy benefited PNI + patients with node-positive but not those with node-negative disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that PNI is an independent poor prognostic factor in stage III colon cancer but does not predict outcomes in node-negative disease. Given the potential adverse effects of adjuvant chemotherapy, our findings discourage its use in node-negative colon cancer when PNI is present.

Hyperbaric bupivacaine versus prilocaine for spinal anesthesia combined with total intravenous anesthesia during oncological colon surgery in a 23-hour stay enhanced recovery protocol: A non-randomized study.

After the success of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol, perioperative care has been further optimized in accelerated enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs), where optimal pain management is crucial. Spinal anesthesia was introduced as adjunct to general anesthesia to reduce postoperative pain and facilitate mobility. This study aimed to determine which spinal anesthetic agent provides best pain relief in accelerated ERP for colon carcinoma. This single center study was a secondary analysis conducted among patients included in the aCcelerated 23-Hour erAS care for colon surgEry study who underwent elective laparoscopic colon surgery. The first 30 patients included received total intravenous anesthesia combined with spinal anesthesia with prilocaine, the 30 patients subsequently included received spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine. Primary endpoint of this study was the total amount of morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) administered during hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were amounts of MMEs administered in the recovery room and surgical ward, pain score using the numeric rating scale, complication rates and length of hospital stay. Compared to prilocaine, the total amount of MMEs administered was significantly lower in the bupivacaine group (n = 60, 16.3 vs 6.3, P = .049). Also, the amount of MMEs administered and median pain scores were significantly lower after intrathecal bupivacaine in the recovery room (MMEs 11.0 vs 0.0, P = .012 and numeric rating scale 2.0 vs 1.5, P = .004). On the surgical ward, median MMEs administered, and pain scores were comparable. Postoperative outcomes were similar in both groups. Spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine was associated with less opioid use and better pain reduction immediately after surgery compared to prilocaine within an accelerated ERP for elective, oncological colon surgery.

[Redo Mitral Valve Replacement for Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis in a Patient with End Stage Colon Cancer:Report of a Case].

Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is rare but devastating. A 69-year old man admitted for active endocarditis caused by Streptococcus pasteurianus. Antibiotic therapy was started, but the patient developed bowel obstruction owing to cancer with multiple liver metastases, and underwent transverse colectomy. Following colectomy, antibiotic agent was given continued for 4 weeks after and mitral valve replacement( MVR) using a bioprosthesis was performed. Oral antibiotic therapy was continued for six months after MVR to avoid infection recurrence. One year after MVR, the size of multiple liver metastases increased despite oral anticancer drugs administration. A totally implantable central venous access port( CV port) was placed and intravenous chemotherapy was started for progressive metastatic colorectal cancer. But the CV port was removed due to device infection caused by multiple drug resistant Staphyrococcus lugdunensis one month later, but the patient developed prosthetic valve endocarditits( PVE) due to the same bacterium, that caused valve stenosis. Redo MVR was indicated because of progressive dyspnea and uncontrollable fever. The patient was discharged one month after redo MVR, but suffered carcinomatous peritonitis, and eventually died eight months post-discharge. Chemotherapy needs caution because of potential risk of PVE in patients with prosthetic valves, especially for those with a history of infectious endocarditis.

The safety and short-term effect of mixed approach in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer compared with middle approach: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether the mixed approach is a safe and advantageous way to operate laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on 316 patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy in our center. They were assigned to the middle approach group (n = 158) and the mixed approach group (n = 158) according to the surgical approaches. The baseline data like gender、age and body mass index as well as the intraoperative and postoperative conditions including operation time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, sex, BMI, ASA grade and tumor characteristics between the two groups. Compared with the middle approach group, the mixed approach group was significantly lower in terms of operation time (217.61 min vs 154.31 min, p < 0.001), intraoperative blood loss (73.8 ml vs 37.97 ml, p < 0.001) and postoperative drainage volume. There was no significant difference in the postoperative complications like postoperative anastomotic leakage, postoperative infection and postoperative intestinal obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the middle approach, the mixed approach is a safe and advantageous way that can significantly shorten the operation time, reduce intraoperative bleeding and postoperative drainage volume, and does not prolong the length of hospital stay or increase the morbidity postoperative complications.

Characteristics and outcomes of large (≥5 cm) colonic adenocarcinomas and comparing outcomes of minimally invasive and open surgery for stage I to III disease.

BACKGROUND: Colon cancer prognosis is primarily dependent on the stage at diagnosis, but tumor size and location may also impact prognosis. This study aimed to assess the characteristics and outcomes of patients with ≥5 cm colonic adenocarcinomas and compare outcomes of open and minimally invasive surgery for stage I to III large colonic adenocarcinomas. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (2010-2019) was searched for patients with colonic adenocarcinomas ≥5 cm. Outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery or open surgery were compared after propensity-score matching. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival and, secondarily, hospital stay, surgical margins, and short-term mortality. RESULTS: A total of 126,959 patients were included (22.1% of all diagnosed adenocarcinomas). 56% of tumors were right-sided, 32.6% were left-sided, and 11.4% were in the transverse colon. Stage IV disease was recorded in 34.6% of patients. Lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog mutations were recorded in 35.7%, 14.9%, and 41.6% of patients. The rate of positive surgical margins was 9.8%. Median hospital stay was 6 (interquartile range: 4-8) days. 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 4.1% and 7.5%, respectively. After matching, 15,228 patients in the open surgery group were matched to a similar number in the minimally invasive surgery group. The minimally invasive surgery group was associated with significantly lower rates of 30- and 90-day mortality, positive surgical margins, shorter hospital stay, and longer median overall survival (110.6 vs 86.6 months, P < .001) than did open surgery. CONCLUSION: Large colonic adenocarcinomas are mostly right-sided or transverse and present at a more advanced stage with adverse pathologic features. Minimally invasive surgery was associated with better overall survival and short-term benefits when compared with open surgery.

Upfront laparotomy versus conversion from minimally invasive surgery to open surgery in colon cancer: Is there a difference in outcomes?

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether conversion from minimally invasive surgery to laparotomy in patients with colon cancer contributes to worse outcomes compared with those operated by laparotomy. In this study, we aimed to assess the implications of transitioning from minimally invasive surgery to laparotomy in patients with colon cancer compared with patients undergoing upfront laparotomy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database, including patients with stages I to III colon cancer (2010-2019). Patients who underwent either upfront laparotomy (Open Surgery Group) or minimally invasive surgery converted to open surgery (Converted Surgery Group) were included. Groups were balanced using propensity-score matching. Primary outcome was overall survival, and secondary outcomes included 30- and 90-day mortality and 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS: The study included 65,083 operated patients with stage I to III colon cancer; 57,091 patients (87.7%) were included in the Open Surgery group and 7,992 (12.3%) in the Converted Surgery group. 93.5% were converted from laparoscopy, and 6.5% were converted from robotic surgery. After propensity-score matching, 7,058 patients were included in each group. Median overall survival was significantly higher in the Converted Surgery group (107.3 months) than in the Open Surgery group (101.5 months; P = .006). A survival benefit was seen in patients >65 years of age (79.5 vs 71.9 months; P = .001), left-sided disease (129.4 vs 114.5 months; P < .001), and with a high Charlson comorbidity index score (=3; 58.9 vs 42.3 months; P = .03). Positive margin rates were similar between the groups (6.3% vs 5.6%; P = .07). Converted patients had a higher 30-day readmission rate (6.7% vs 5.6%, P = .006) and shorter duration of stay (median, 5 vs 6 days, P < .001) than patients in the Open Surgery group. In addition, 30-day mortality was comparable between the groups (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .07). CONCLUSION: Conversion to open surgery from minimally invasive surgery was associated with better overall survival compared with upfront open surgery. A survival benefit was mainly seen in patients >65 years of age, with significant comorbidities, and with left-sided tumors. We believe these data suggest that, in the absence of an absolute contraindication to minimally invasive surgery, it should be the preferred approach in patients with colon cancer.

Management Strategies for Malignant Left-Sided Colonic Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Propensity Score Matching Studies.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment strategy for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction remains controversial. Emergency colonic resection has been the standard of care; however, self-expanding metallic stenting as a bridge to surgery may offer short-term advantages, although oncological concerns exist. Decompressing stoma may provide a valid alternative, with limited evidence. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and Bayesian arm random-effects model network meta-analysis comparing the approaches for management of malignant left-sided colonic obstruction. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases was conducted from inception to August 22, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies. INTERVENTIONS: Emergency colonic resection, self-expanding metallic stent, and decompressing stoma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Oncologic efficacy, morbidity, successful minimally invasive surgery, primary anastomosis, and permanent stoma rates. RESULTS: Nineteen of 5225 articles identified met our inclusion criteria. Stenting (risk ratio 0.57; 95% credible interval, 0.33-0.79) and decompressing stomas (risk ratio 0.46, 95% credible interval: 0.18-0.92) resulted in a significant reduction in the permanent stoma rate. Stenting facilitated minimally invasive surgery more frequently (risk ratio 4.10; 95% credible interval, 1.45-13.13) and had lower overall morbidity (risk ratio 0.58; 95% credible interval, 0.35-0.86). A pairwise analysis of primary anastomosis rates showed increased stenting (risk ratio 1.40; 95% credible interval, 1.31-1.49) compared with emergency resection. There was a significant decrease in the 90-day mortality with stenting (risk ratio 0.63; 95% credible interval, 0.41-0.95) compared with resection. There were no differences in disease-free and overall survival rates, respectively. LIMITATIONS: There is a lack of randomized controlled trials and propensity score matching data comparing short-term and long-term outcomes for diverting stomas compared to self-expanding metallic stents. Two trials compared self-expanding metallic stents and diverting stomas in left-sided malignant colonic obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides high-level evidence that a bridge-to-surgery strategy is safe for the management of left-sided malignant colonic obstruction and may facilitate minimally invasive surgery, increase primary anastomosis rates, and reduce permanent stoma rates and postoperative morbidity compared with emergency colonic resection.