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

Table 3 Comparison results of emergency resection and endoscopic stenting as bridge to surgery

Ref.	Patients (Nu)	Study	Morbidity	Mortality	Long-term outcome
McKechnie et al[24]	9403	Meta-analysis Canada	Similar (27.2% vs 27.8%)	Improved in stenting (4.4% vs 6.1%)	Equivalent (insufficient data)
Paniagua García-Señoráns et al[42]	251	Single centre Retrospective Spain	Improved in stenting (36% vs 62.5%)	Equivalent (5.3% vs 6.3%)	Equivalent (3-yr DFS: 31.4.6% vs 33.4%, 3-yr OS: 37.5% vs 36.1%)
Wang et al[70]	78	Single centre Retrospective China	Similar (16.2% vs 26.8%)	Similar (0 vs 4.9%)	Similar (median overall survival: 36 months for both groups)
Hadaya et al[1]	9706	Nation-wide United States	Similar (12.2% vs 14.4%)	Similar (1.2% vs 3.4%)	Undetermined
Balciscueta et al[85]	1273	Meta-analysis Spain	-	-	Worse in stenting; 1Higher risk of perineural (45.6% vs 32.6%)- lymphatic (47.4 % vs 42%) invasion
Spannenburg et al[86]	3894	Meta-analysis Australia	Improved in stenting (26.09% vs 41.4%)	Improved in stenting (6.5% vs 8.1%)	Similar recurrence (31% vs 25%)
Boeding et al[101]	600	Meta-analysis Netherlands	Improved in stenting (30% vs 42%)	Improved in stenting (1.2% vs 7.2%)	Similar (5-yr DFS: 65.6% vs 63.1%, 5-yr OS: 66.9% vs 64%)

¹Highlight of importance.

DFS: Disease-free survival; OS: Overall survival.