Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 648

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of colorectal stents

Khot, U P, Lang, A Wenk, Murali, K, Parker, M C·2002·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background: Colorectal stents are being used for palliation and as a ‘bridge to surgery’ in obstructing colorectal cancers. Methods: A systematic review of the published data on stenting for the treatment of colorectal obstruction was carried out by searching Medline and other online databases for the period from January 1990 to December 2000. A total of 58 publications (case series, single case reports and reviews) was found, of which 29 case series were included in the analysis. Technical and clinical success, complications and reobstruction, both in palliation and as a ‘bridge to surgery’, were assessed. Both descriptive statistics and pooled analyses were carried out. Results: Pooled results showed that stent insertion was attempted in 598 instances. Technical success was achieved in 551 (92 per cent) and clinical success in 525 (88 per cent). Palliation was achieved in 302 (90 per cent) of 336 cases, while 223 (85 per cent) of 262 insertions succeeded as a ‘bridge to surgery’ (95 per cent had a one-stage surgical procedure). There were three deaths (1 per cent). Perforation occurred 22 times (4 per cent). Stent migration was reported in 54 (10 per cent) of 551 technically successful cases. The rate of stent reobstruction was 52 (10 per cent) of 525, mainly in the palliative group. Conclusion: Evidence suggests that colorectal stents offer good palliation, and are safe and effective as a ‘bridge to surgery’. Stent usage can avoid the need for a stoma, and is associated with low rates of mortality and morbidity. Dilatation of malignant strictures at the time of stent placement appears to be dangerous and should be avoided.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02148.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 648

Metadata

Authors
Khot, U. P., Lang, A. W., Murali, K., & Parker, M. C.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
2002-09
Volume
89
Issue
9
Pages
1096-1102
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2102742241
Cited by
648
References
0
FWCI
1.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of colorectal stents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02148.x
The paper
Khot, U. P., Lang, A. W., Murali, K., & Parker, M. C. (2002). Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of colorectal stents. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02148.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.