Uncovered versus covered stent in management of large bowel obstruction due to colorectal malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE

To compare outcomes of uncovered stent and covered stent in management of large bowel obstruction secondary to colorectal malignancy.

METHODS

We conducted a search of electronic databases identifying studies comparing outcomes of uncovered and covered stents in management of large bowel obstruction secondary to colorectal malignancy. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the included studies. Random or fixed effects modelling were applied as appropriate to calculate pooled outcome data.

RESULTS

One randomised controlled trial (RCT) and nine observational studies, enrolling 753 patients, were identified. Uncovered stent was associated with lower risks of complications (RR 0.57 95% CI 0.44-0.74, P < 0.0001), tumour overgrowth (RR 0.29 95% CI 0.09-0.93, P = 0.04), and stent migration (RR 0.29 95% CI 0.17-0.48, P < 0.00001); longer duration of patency (MD 18.47 95% CI 10.46-26.48, P < 0.00001); lower need for stent reinsertion (RR 0.38 95% CI 0.17-0.86, P = 0.02); and higher risk of tumour ingrowth (RR 4.53 95% CI 1.92-10.69, P = 0.0008). Rates of technical success (RR 1.02 95% CI 0.99-1.04, P = 0.21), clinical success (RR 1.03 95% CI 0.98-1.08, P = 0.32), perforation (RD 0.01 95% CI - 0.03-0.02, P = 0.65), bleeding (RD 0.00 95% CI - 0.03-0.03, P = 0.98), stool impaction (RR 0.56 95% CI 0.12-2.04, P = 0.38) and stent obstruction (RR 2.23 95% CI 0.94-5.34, P = 0.97) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that uncovered stents are superior as indicated by fewer complications, lower rates of stent migration, longer duration of patency and a reduced need for stent reinsertion. The best available evidence is mainly derived from non-randomised studies; there is a need for more RCTs.