Edorium Journal of

Surgery

 
  Table of Contents    
Review Article
 
Treatment of obstructive colorectal carcinoma
Yusuf Yagmur
Professor of Surgery, Gazi Yasargil Research and Teaching Hospital, Head of Department of General Surgery, Diyarbakir 21010.

Article ID: 100008S05YY2015
doi:10.5348/S05-2015-8-RA-6

Address correspondence to:
Yusuf Yagmur
MD, Professor of Surgery
Gazi Yaşargil Research and Teaching Hospital Head of Department of General Surgery
Diyarbakir 21010

Access full text article on other devices

  Access PDF of article on other devices

[HTML Abstract]   [PDF Full Text] [Print This Article]
[Similar article in Pumed] [Similar article in Google Scholar]

How to cite this article
Yagmur Y. Treatment of Obstructive Colorectal Carcinoma. Edorium J Surg 2015;2:21–25.


Abstract
Aims: Treatment of obstructive colorectal carcinoma is confronting issue for surgeon. The paper aims to generate evidenced based recommendations on management of obstructive colorectal carcinoma.
Methods: The PubMed was queried for publications focusing on obstructive colorectal carcinoma published prior to April 2015. Total 26 studies were investigated.
Results: While in the right site colon carcinoma obstruction, resection and anastomosis is almost accepted by all surgeons, left colon carcinoma obstruction is a challenging issue. Several options are available. There was one guideline for obstructing left colorectal cancer prepared at consensus conference of the world society of emergency surgery (WSES) and peritoneum and surgery (PnS) society 2010 held in Bologna. In the treatments of obstructive left colon cancer Hartmann's procedure should be preferred to stage processing due to long period of hospitalization and multiple operations with a colostomy. The staged procedure could be preferred in clinical situations like damage control surgery of trauma, neoadjuvant treatment and unresectable disease. Hartmann's procedure is easy with no risk of anastomotic separation and should be preferred by less experienced surgeons in colon surgery. Segmental resection with intra colonic irrigation was accepted more appropriate than subtotal colectomy only in patients with carcinomas of the rectosigmoid junction. Total/subtotal colectomy (without cecal perforation or synchronous right colon cancer patients) should not be preferred to intra colonic irrigation and segmental colectomy. Results showed no significant difference in the anastomotic leak rates and mortality rates between the intra colonic irrigation and manual decompression in the randomized and comparative trials. Self-expanding endoscopic metallic (SEMS) was used for palliation and bridge to surgery. The SEMS could be used before elective surgery as bridge to surgery. The SEMS usage has lower mortality, shorter hospital stay and less need for colostomy. In obstructive colorectal cancer, SEMS could be preferred to emergency surgery for palliation with less mortality and morbidity and shorter hospital stay.
Conclusion: One-stage resection and ileocolic anastomosis is treatment of choice in case of right colon tumor obstruction. In the treatment of left colon cancer obstruction, Hartmann's procedure seems to be better than staged resection. In case of cecal perforation or ischemia, subtotal and total colectomy is operation of choice. In selected cases, primary resection and anastomosis with manual decompression or intraoperative colonic irrigation could be preferred but diverting loop ileostomy should be added to operation due to risk of anastomotic dehiscence. Colonic stents seems to be good choice in bridge to surgery.

Keywords: Colorectal cancer obstruction, Left, Right, Systematic review


Introduction

Obstructive colorectal carcinoma (OCC) treatment especially left colon carcinoma is a challenging issue. Emergency surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with a high postoperative morbidity and mortality rate. Incidence of emergency surgery for colorectal tumor have been reported a rate of 11–43% despite the growing diagnostic tools and screening programs [1] [2]. While primary anastomosis is performed on the right side colon tumor, on the left side of OCC treatment strategy is not well defined and challenging. OCC is associated with a high operative mortality and a worse prognosis. In selected patients with a low anesthetic risk, immediate resection with primary anastomosis represents the gold standard. For patients with an intermediate risk, a temporary defunctioning colostomy or ileostomy could be proposed; in high-risk patients with advanced obstruction, simultaneous colonic perforation, metastatic or locally advanced disease, Hartmann's operation should be proposed [3]. Colonic stenting is clinically successful in up to 90% in specialized groups for palliation or bridge to surgery. Loop colostomy is still indicated in patients at high surgical risk if stent insertion is not possible [4].

To find best treatment strategy for obstructive colorectal carcinomas, PubMed search was made up to date.


Methods

The PubMed was searched for publications on obstructive colorectal carcinoma up to April 2015. Randomized controlled trials and journals with high impact factors were preferred. Total 26 studies were investigated. There was one guideline for obstructing left colorectal cancer prepared at consensus conference of the world society of emergency surgery (WSES) and peritoneum and surgery (PnS) society 2010 held in Bologna. In the right side obstructive colon carcinomas, almost all surgeons agree of resection right hemicolectomy with ileocolic anastomosis. However, left side colorectal obstruction treatment was challenging.

Results

All patients with right-colon tumor obstruction are usually treated with one-stage resection and primary anastomosis. This is accepted almost as a guideline for right colon obstruction. The treatment of obstructive left colon cancer could be as follows: Loop colostomy or ileostomy and subsequent resection (2-or 3-stage procedure). Primary resection and end colostomy: Hartmann's procedure (HP). Primary resection and anastomosis (PRA) either with a total/subtotal colectomy or segmental colectomy with intraoperative colon irrigation (ICI) or with manual decompression (MD). Endoscopic stenting of colon by self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) either for palliation or bridge to surgery [5].

The HP procedure should be preferred to stage processing in left OCC because staged processing requires a long period of hospitalization and multiple operations with a colostomy [5]. The staged procedure could be preferred in clinical situations like damage control surgery of trauma, neoadjuvant treatment and unresectable disease [5].

There are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HP to PRA. In the non-randomized study of German Study Group of Meyer et al. [6]. The 213 HP were carried out in emergency situations. HP was useful for perforated and left OCC [6]. HP is easy with no risk of anastomotic separation and should be preferred by less experienced surgeons in colon surgery [5]. However, disappointingly anastomosis revision rate remains 20% of the cases [7] [8]. HP has no benefits to survival comparing to segmental colon resection and primary anastomosis and should be preferred in high surgical risk patients [5].

In SCOTIA study [9], 47 patients were randomized to subtotal colectomy and 44 to on-table irrigation and segmental colectomy (SC). Hospital mortality and complication rates did not differ significantly, but four months after operation increased bowel frequency (three or more bowel movements per day) was significantly more common in the subtotal colectomy group (14 of 35 versus four of 35, p = 0.01). The conclusion in this study was that segmental colectomy following intraoperative irrigation is accepted the preferred option except when there is cecal perforation or if synchronous neoplasms are present in the colon, when subtotal colectomy is more appropriate [9]. In another none randomized study, comparing subtotal colectomy with ICI and segmental resection and immediate anastomosis. The mortality rate was similar and surgical complication rate was significantly higher in the ICI group (41.9%) than in the subtotal colectomy group (14.2%, p < 0.05). Subtotal colectomy was accepted the treatment of choice for left OCC. Segmental resection with ICI was accepted more appropriate than subtotal colectomy only in patients with carcinomas of the rectosigmoid junction or with previous anal incontinence to avoid the appearance of postoperative diarrhea [10].

Total/subtotal colectomy (without cecal perforation or synchronous right colon cancer patients) should not be preferred to intra colonic irrigation and segmental colectomy due to similar mortality morbidity rates, survival rate and high rates of bowel function deterioration [5].

In a randomized controlled trial of SC with ICI versus SC with manual decompression (MD) for left OCC [11], times for recovery of bowel function, discharge from the hospital and wound infection were similar. Although two cases in the MD group had anastomotic leak requiring reoperation difference was not statistically significant. MD of proximal colon without irrigation was accepted as safe as ICI in one-stage surgical management of left OCC [11]. In a systematic review [12], results showed no significant difference in the anastomotic leak rates and mortality rates between the ICI and MD arms in the randomized and comparative trials [12].

Jiang et al. [13], investigated 143 patients with left-sided colorectal cancer underwent emergency curative resection. Primary resection group had a higher anastomotic leakage rate. Delayed resection seems to be a safer procedure and provided a better oncologic outcome compared with primary resection in obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer under emergency situations.

In the Stewart et al. study [14], sixty-three patients (86%) underwent single-stage restorative procedures. There were four clinical anastomotic leaks (6%). On-table lavage and primary anastomosis constitute the operation of choice for most patients with acute left OCC [14]. In OCC (without cecal perforation and non-synchronous right colon cancer cases), during segmental resection and primary anastomosis, MD or ICC could be done. Both morbidity and mortality rate is the same; the only difference is a shorter and easier process in MD [5].

Anastomosis leakage rates in the single staged resection of the left OCC were between 1% and 6% [14][15] [16] [17] [18]. Mortality rates were between 4% and 15% [9] [18] [19] [20]. No differences in bowel function and complication rate was noticed between segmental left and extended right colectomies in left OCC [21].

During the 1990s, colonic endoscopic stent (SEMS; self-expanding endoscopic metallic) was used for palliation and bridge to surgery. There are three randomized trials comparing SEMS to colostomy for palliation. In Xinopulos et al. study [22], there was 93.3% success rate in 30 patients (14/15 pts.). No mortality was noticed. In 57% of patients (8/14), colon obstruction was eliminated permanently (until death). Median survival was 21.4 months in SEMS, 20.9months in colostomy. SEMS hospital stay was 28 days, colostomy group 60 days. Cheung et al. [23] study to compare self-expanding metal stents with emergency open surgery in the treatment of left OCC, twenty-four underwent endoluminal stenting followed by laparoscopic resection and 24 underwent emergency open surgery. Significantly, more patients in the endolaparoscopic group had a successful 1-stage operation performed (16 vs 9, p = 0.04). None of the patients in the endolaparoscopic group had a permanent stoma compared with 6 patients in the emergency open surgery group (p = 0.03). Self-expanding metal stents serve as a safe and effective bridge to subsequent laparoscopic surgery in patients with left OCC. In Lee HJ et al. [24] study, 130 patients with unresectable obstructive colorectal cancer received successful self-expandable metal stent placement. Among them, 14 patients received primary colectomy after successful stenting. The study pointed to reduce stent-related late complications; primary colectomy after successful endoscopic stenting could be a therapeutic option in patients who have unresectable colorectal cancer with obstruction, especially in those who expect long-term survival. Boyle et al. [25] in a recently published paper investigated 126 with acute large-bowel obstruction undergoing colonic stenting (SEMS). Technical deployment of the stent was accomplished in 108 of 126 (86%) patients; however, only 89 (70%) achieved clinical decompression. Successful deployment and clinical decompression was associated with colorectal cancer (p = 0.03), shorter strictures (p = 0.01), and wider angulation distal to the obstruction (p = 0.049). Perforation was associated with longer strictures (p = 0.03).Their conclusion was colonic stenting in acute large-bowel obstruction is more likely to be successful in shorter, malignant strictures with less angulation distal to the obstruction. Longer benign strictures are less likely to be successful and may be associated with an increased risk of perforation. In a recent study of Matsuda et al. [26], There were 11 studies that matched the criteria for inclusion, yielding a total of 1136 patients, of whom 432 (38.0%) underwent bridge to surgery and 704 (62.0%) underwent emergency surgery. Overall survival analyses of all patients and patients who underwent curative resection, bridge to surgery was similar to emergency surgery. Recurrence did not differ significantly between the bridge to surgery and emergency surgery groups. SEMS could be used before elective surgery as bridge to surgery. SEMS usage has lower mortality, shorter hospital stay and less need for colostomy. In obstructive colorectal cancer, SEMS could be preferred to emergency surgery for palliation with less mortality and morbidity and shorter hospital stay [5].


Conclusion

In case of right colon tumor obstruction, treatment of choice is usually one-stage resection and ileocolic anastomosis. In the treatment of left colon cancer obstruction, Hartmann's procedure seems to be better than staged resection. Simple colostomy could be preferred in cases needing less operative time, too much dilated colon with full of feces and when neoadjuvant treatment is planned. In case of cecal perforation of ischemia with left colonic cancer obstruction subtotal and total colectomy is operation of choice. In selected cases with left colon obstruction, primary resection and anastomosis with manual decompression or intraoperative colonic irrigation could be could be preferred but diverting loop ileostomy should be added to operation due to risk of anastomotic dehiscence. Colonic stents seems to be good choice in bridge to surgery.


References
  1. Tobaruela E, Camuñas J, Enríquez-Navascúes JM, et al. Medical factors in the morbidity and mortality associated with emergency colorectal cancer surgery. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 1997 Jan;89(1):13–22.   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 1
  2. Smothers L, Hynan L, Fleming J, Turnage R, Simmang C, Anthony T. Emergency surgery for colon carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 2003 Jan;46(1):24–30.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 2
  3. Formisano V, Di Muria A, Connola G, et al. Our experience in the management of obstructing colorectal cancer. Ann Ital Chir 2014 Nov-Dec;85(6):563–8.   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 3
  4. Gainant A. Emergency management of acute colonic cancer obstruction. J Visc Surg 2012 Feb;149(1):e3–e10.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 4
  5. Ansaloni L, Andersson RE, Bazzoli F, et al. Guidelenines in the management of obstructing cancer of the left colon: consensus conference of the world society of emergency surgery (WSES) and peritoneum and surgery (PnS) society. World J Emerg Surg 2010 Dec 28;5:29.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 5
  6. Meyer F, Marusch F, Koch A, et al. Emergency operation in carcinomas of the left colon: value of Hartmann's procedure. Tech Coloproctol 2004 Nov;8 Suppl 1:s226–9.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 6
  7. Zorcolo L, Covotta L, Carlomagno N, Bartolo DC. Safety of primary anastomosis in emergency colo-rectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 2003 May;5(3):262–9.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 7
  8. Desai DC, Brennan EJ Jr, Reilly JF, Smink RD Jr. The utility of the Hartmann procedure. Am J Surg 1998 Feb;175(2):152–4.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 8
  9. Single-stage treatment for malignant left-sided colonic obstruction: a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing subtotal colectomy with segmental resection following intraoperative irrigation. The SCOTIA Study Group. Subtotal Colectomy versus On-table Irrigation and Anastomosis. Br J Surg 1995 Dec;82(12):1622–7.   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 9
  10. Torralba JA, Robles R, Parrilla P, Subtotal colectomy vs. intraoperative colonic irrigation in the management of obstructed left colon carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 1998 Jan;41(1):18–22.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 10
  11. Lim JF, Tang CL, Seow-Choen F, Heah SM. Prospective, randomized trial comparing intraoperative colonic irrigation with manual decompression only for obstructed left-sided colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2005 Feb;48(2):205–9.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 11
  12. Kam MH, Tang CL, Chan E, Lim JF, Eu KW. Systematic review of intraoperative colonic irrigation vs. manual decompression in obstructed left-sided colorectal emergencies. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009 Sep;24(9):1031–7.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 12
  13. Jiang JK, Lan YT, Lin TC, Primary vs. delayed resection for obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer: impact of surgery on patient outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 2008 Mar;51(3):306–11.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 13
  14. Stewart J, Diament RH, Brennan TG. Management of obstructing lesions of the left colon by resection, on-table lavage, and primary anastomosis. Surgery 1993 Sep;114(3):502–5.   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 14
  15. Runkel NS, Hinz U, Lehnert T, Buhr HJ, Herfarth Ch. Improved outcome after emergency surgery for cancer of the large intestine. Br J Surg 1998 Sep;85(9):1260–5.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 15
  16. Hsu TC. Comparison of one-stage resection and anastomosis of acute complete obstruction of left and right colon. Am J Surg 2005 Apr;189(4):384–7.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 16
  17. Deen KI, Madoff RD, Goldberg SM, Rothenberger DA. Surgical management of left colon obstruction: the University of Minnesota experience. J Am Coll Surg 1998 Dec;187(6):573–6.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 17
  18. Poon RT, Law WL, Chu KW, Wong J. Emergency resection and primary anastomosis for left-sided obstructing colorectal carcinoma in the elderly. Br J Surg 1998 Nov;85(11):1539–42.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 18
  19. Poon JT, Chan B, Law WL. Evaluation of P-POSSUM in surgery for obstructing colorectal cancer and correlation of the predicted mortality with different surgical options. Dis Colon Rectum 2005 Mar;48(3):493–8.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 19
  20. McGillicuddy EA, Schuster KM, Davis KA, Longo WE. Factors predicting morbidity and mortality in emergency colorectal procedures in elderly patients. Arch Surg 2009 Dec;144(12):1157–62.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 20
  21. Nyam DC, Leong AF, Ho YH, Seow-Choen F. Comparison between segmental left and extended right colectomies for obstructing left-sided colonic carcinomas. Dis Colon Rectum 1996 Sep;39(9):1000–3.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 21
  22. Xinopoulos D, Dimitroulopoulos D, Theodosopoulos T, et al. Stenting or stoma creation for patients with inoperable malignant colonic obstructions? Results of a study and cost-effectiveness analysis. Surg Endosc 2004 Mar;18(3):421–6.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 22
  23. Cheung HY, Chung CC, Tsang WW, Wong JC, Yau KK, Li MK. Endolaparoscopic approach vs conventional open surgery in the treatment of obstructing left-sided colon cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg 2009 Dec;144(12):1127–32.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 23
  24. Lee HJ, Park SJ, Min BS, The role of primary colectomy after successful endoscopic stenting in patients with obstructive metastatic colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2014 Jun;57(6):694–9.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 24
  25. Boyle DJ, Thorn C, Saini A, et al. Predictive factors for successful colonic stenting in acute large-bowel obstruction: a 15-year cohort analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2015 Mar;58(3):358–62.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 25
  26. Matsuda A, Miyashita M, Matsumoto S, et al. Comparison of long-term outcomes of colonic stent as "bridge to surgery" and emergency surgery for malignant large-bowel obstruction: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2015 Feb;22(2):497–504.   [CrossRef]   [Pubmed]    Back to citation no. 26
[HTML Abstract]   [PDF Full Text]

Author Contributions
Yusuf Yagmur – Substantial contributions to conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting the article, Revising it critically for important intellectual content, Final approval of the version to be published
Guarantor of submission
The corresponding author is the guarantor of submission.
Source of support
None
Conflict of interest
Authors declare no conflict of interest.
Copyright
© 2015 Yusuf Yagmur. This article is distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original author(s) and original publisher are properly credited. Please see the copyright policy on the journal website for more information.



  Home line About the Journal line Aim and Scope line Sections line Open Access line Archives
Apply as Editor line Apply as Reviewer line Submit Reviews - Editors line Submit Reviews - Reviewers
Instructions for Authors line Templates to Use line Copyright Form line Author Checklist
Online Submission line Email Submission line Submit Revision line Submit All Forms line Submit Page Proofs
Terms of Service line Privacy policy line Disclaimer line FAQ line Contact: Journal line Contact: Edorium Journals line Site Map
 
  Copyright © 2017. Edorium. All rights reserved.