RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, left-sided acute bowel obstruction is treated by a staged procedure because immediate resection and anastomosis in a massive distended and unprepared colon carries a high complication rate. Total abdominal colectomy is a one-stage procedure that will remove synchronous proximal neoplasms, reduce the risk of subsequent metachronous tumor, and avoid stoma. Colorectal stents are being used for palliation and as a bridge to surgery in obstructing colorectal carcinoma, making elective surgery straightforward, enabling easily mobilization and resection of the colon with a possible trend toward reduction in postoperative complication rates compared to emergency surgery. The purpose of this work was to compare the procedures of endoscopic stenting followed by elective colectomy versus total abdominal colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis in the management of acute obstructed carcinoma of the left colon as regards feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes METHODS: From January 2009 through May 2012, 60 patients were randomized to either emergency stenting followed by elective resection (ESER group) or total abdominal colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis (TACIR group). RESULTS: Twenty nine patients (96.7 %) had successful stenting and underwent elective surgery 7-10 days later (ESER group). Postoperative complications were encountered in four patients in the ESER group compared to 15 patients in the TACIR group (p = 0.012). Anastomotic leakage was encountered in one patient (3.3 %) in the TACIR group. There were no operative mortalities in the present study. Within the first three postoperative months, the TACIR group patients had significantly more frequent bowel motions per day compared to the ESER group patients although (p = 0.013). In both study groups, the follow-up duration ranged from 6 to 40 months with a median of 18 months. Recurrent disease was encountered in five patients (17.2 %) in the ESER group compared to four patients (13.3 %) in the TACIR group (p = 0.228). CONCLUSION: Both techniques are feasible, safe, and produce comparable oncological outcomes. However, endoscopic stenting followed by elective resection was associated with significantly less postoperative complications and bowel motions per day.
