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.