Management of obstructed colorectal carcinoma in an emergency setting: An update

Table 2 Comparison results of endoscopic stenting and endoscopic tubing

Ref.	Patients (Nu)	Study	Clin success	Complications	Survival
Inoue et al[28]	48	Single center retrospective Japan	Better in stenting (100% vs 80.6%)	Similar (0 vs 4%)	Equivalent (5-yr: 69.5% vs 38.4%)
Xu et al[29]	704	Meta-analysis China	Better in stenting (94.5% vs 86.1%)	Fewer in stenting (6.9% vs 12.4%)	-
Kagami et al[30]	53	Single center retrospective Japan	Better in stenting (100% vs 81.8%)	Fewer in stenting (0 vs 18.2%)	Equivalent (3-yr: 73% vs 80.9%)
Matsuda et al[89]	581	Meta-analysis Japan	Better in stenting (93.2% vs 77.3%)	Equivalent (5.5% vs. 11.7%)	-
Numata et al[31]	225	Multicenter prospective Japan	Better in stenting (92.6% vs 75.3%)	Fewer posto-perative in stenting (21.1% vs 33.3%)	Similar (3 yr: 87.1% vs 90.5%)
Takahashi et al[53]	35	Single center prospective Japan	Similar (88% vs 90%)	Similar (12% vs 10%)	1Increased circulating DNA on day 7 in stenting (992 vs 308 ng/mL)
Suzuki et al[18]	40	Single center retrospective Japan	Similar (89.5% vs 85.7%)	Similar (10.5% vs 14.2%)	Better in tubing (5 yr: 79.5% vs 32%)

¹Highlight of importance.