Large bowel obstruction — malignant disease, volvulus and pseudo-obstruction

A 71-year-old man arrives with three days of colicky pain, progressive distension and absolute constipation, and a CT showing an obstructing sigmoid cancer without peritonitis. A 79-year-old nursing-home resident arrives with a massively distended tympanitic abdomen and an empty rectum. A postoperative ventilated patient develops a 12 cm caecum with no transition point. One disease label — "large bowel obstruction" — covers a malignant stricture, a twisted sigmoid and a colon that is dilated without any blockage at all, and each demands a different operation, or none. This page is the framework that sorts the three — with the numbers that govern each decision.^[1][2][23]

Definition — mechanical obstruction, and the pseudo-obstruction that mimics it

Large bowel obstruction is mechanical occlusion of the colon with proximal dilatation, and the WSES colorectal-emergency guidelines frame exactly this territory: obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer represent challenging matters in terms of diagnosis, life-saving strategies, obstruction resolution and oncologic challenge.^[1] The guideline scope is explicit — updating management of large bowel perforation and obstructive left colon carcinoma while developing new guidance on obstructive right colon carcinoma — so the malignant-versus-benign and left-versus-right distinctions open every fellowship answer.^[1]

Acute colonic pseudo-obstruction is the mimic that must be excluded before any resection plan: Ogilvie's syndrome describes an acute colonic pseudo-obstruction consisting of dilatation of part or all of the colon and rectum without intrinsic or extrinsic mechanical obstruction.^[23] Sigmoid volvulus sits between the two as a mechanical closed-loop emergency in its own right: a common surgical emergency, especially in elderly patients, whose patients can present with a wide range of clinical states — from asymptomatic, to frank peritonitis secondary to colonic perforation — and who generally need urgent treatment, be it endoscopic decompression of the colon or an upfront colectomy.^[2]

Epidemiology — who obstructs, and what it costs them

Quote the Large Bowel Cancer Project as the historical anchor: of 4,583 patients, 713 (16 per cent) were obstructed, and the site of greatest risk was the splenic flexure (49 per cent).^[3] Obstruction itself worsened prognosis beyond stage: advanced stage was neither the full reason why some patients obstructed nor for their subsequent poor prospects, with age-adjusted 5-year survival of 25 per cent obstructed versus 45 per cent not obstructed.^[3] The operative burden was stark — in-hospital mortality was high (23 per cent), was not reduced by either a policy of primary or staged resection, and was not influenced by the site of obstruction.^[3]

The contemporary casemix is quantified two ways. Small and large bowel obstructions together are responsible for approximately 15% of hospital admissions for acute abdominal pain in the USA and around 20% of cases needing acute surgical care.^[29] The Goodbye Hartmann cohort — 1,215 patients with left-sided colonic emergencies requiring surgery across 204 centres — found complicated acute diverticulitis the most common cause (40.2%), followed by colorectal malignancy (36.6%).^[25]

Pathophysiology — distension, ischaemia, perforation

The sequence the examiner expects is distal occlusion with progressive proximal dilatation, fluid sequestration and bacterial overgrowth, ending in ischaemia and then perforation — which is why large-bowel obstruction is an abdominal emergency with high morbidity and mortality rates if left untreated.^[4] Perforation converts a contained obstruction into faecal peritonitis, and the WSES framing names exactly this dual jeopardy: diagnosis and life-saving strategy first, obstruction resolution and the oncologic challenge second.^[1]

Volvulus accelerates the same cascade through torsion: the sigmoid twists on its mesentery and the caecum twists on its own pedicle, so venous outflow obstructs first and arterial inflow follows — which is why the sigmoid-volvulus spectrum runs from asymptomatic to frank peritonitis secondary to colonic perforation, and why caecal volvulus carries the warning that if gangrene supervenes, mortality rises appreciably.^[2][19] Pseudo-obstruction follows a different physiology — dilatation without any intrinsic or extrinsic mechanical obstruction — so its treatment ladder is medical and endoscopic, with surgery considered only as a final option if medical treatments fail or if colonic perforation is suspected.^[23]

Clinical presentation and examination

Expect colicky abdominal pain, progressive distension, absolute constipation and late vomiting — the distal-obstruction picture — against the small-bowel pattern of early profuse vomiting. The sigmoid-volvulus bedside is the elderly patient with gradual massive distension, tympany and an empty rectum; the caecal-volvulus bedside is more acute pain where diagnostic doubt is not uncommon.^[2][19] The pseudo-obstruction bedside is the debilitated or postoperative patient with a distended but non-tender colon and no transition point on imaging — dilatation of part or all of the colon and rectum without mechanical obstruction.^[23]

Peritonism, tachycardia, hypotension and a rising lactate declare ischaemia or perforation and mandate emergency operation — the WSES sigmoid guidance names frank peritonitis secondary to colonic perforation as the far end of the spectrum requiring upfront colectomy, and caecal gangrene or a grossly distended thin-walled caecum mandates resection.^[2][19] No bedside finding excludes strangulation, so the distended tender patient is dispositioned by CT, not by reassurance.

Bedside assessment and triage — the first hour

Resuscitate, decompress and image simultaneously: fluids and electrolytes, nasogastric tube, broad-spectrum antibiotics if septic or perforation is suspected, lactate, and the contrast CT that stages everything — because large-bowel obstruction is an abdominal emergency with high morbidity and mortality rates if left untreated.^[4] CT is the best imaging technique to evaluate large bowel obstruction and perforation, and computed tomography is the imaging method of choice as it can establish the diagnosis and cause.^[1][4]

Sort tonight's operation from this week's plan at first contact. Operate tonight for peritonitis, ischaemia, perforation or caecal compromise — frank peritonitis secondary to colonic perforation needs upfront colectomy, and resection is mandatory for gangrene and a grossly distended thin-walled caecum.^[2][19] Plan detorsion or stent-and-stage for the stable patient: uncomplicated sigmoid volvulus is decompressed via endoscopy while surgery is required in complicated cases, and for obstructive left colon carcinoma the stent offers advantages where available and expertise exists.^[16][1] Triage the distended postoperative patient between ileus, Ogilvie and mechanical obstruction by CT transition point — diffuse dilatation to the rectum without a cut-off is pseudo-obstruction until proven otherwise.^[6]

Laboratory investigations

Order the physiology panel that maps to decisions: lactate for ischaemia, C-reactive protein and white cell count for inflammation, urea and electrolytes for third-spacing, and arterial blood gas for the metabolic state. Rising markers carry a measured signal in sigmoid volvulus: higher C-reactive protein and lactate levels were associated with emergency surgery.^[18] In the postoperative oliguric patient, add the oncologic baseline once the emergency is controlled — staging CT of chest, abdomen and pelvis with carcinoembryonic antigen — since obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer carry the long-term oncologic challenge alongside the emergency.^[1]

Normal bloods never exclude ischaemia, so schedule re-examination with re-lactate rather than trusting a single normal set — diagnostic doubt is not uncommon in caecal volvulus, and if gangrene supervenes, mortality rises appreciably.^[19]

Clinical scores and decision tools

Hajibandeh Index versus NELA. In 700 emergency-laparotomy patients the predictive performance of the HI and NELA models was comparable — 30-day mortality AUC 0.86 versus 0.87, 90-day mortality AUC 0.81 versus 0.84 — while in patients aged over 80 the HI was significantly better than NELA for 30-day mortality (AUC 0.85 versus 0.72).^[27]

NELA elderly burden and the geriatrician effect. Across 93,415 NELA patients with median age 67 years, patients aged 65 or more had higher 30-day mortality (15.3 versus 4.9%) and 90-day mortality (20.4 versus 7.2%).^[28] Post-operative geriatrician review was associated with reduced mortality — 30-day odds ratio 0.38, 90-day odds ratio 0.60 — so request it for every obstructed patient past 65.^[28]

Hartmann-versus-anastomosis selection. The Goodbye Hartmann regression shows where resection and primary anastomosis was preferred: younger patients, low ASA score (3 or less), large bowel obstruction presentation, absence of colonic ischaemia, longer time from admission to surgery, operating in early day working hours, by a surgeon who performed more than 50 colorectal resections.^[25] Apply the pattern honestly: the stable young obstructed patient with viable bowel in daytime colorectal hands is the anastomosis candidate; the unstable ischaemic patient at night is not.

^{[27] [28] [25]}

Imaging — strategy and test performance

State the default without hedging: CT scan is the best imaging technique to evaluate large bowel obstruction and perforation, and computed tomography is the imaging method of choice as it can establish the diagnosis and cause of large-bowel obstruction.^[1][4] The CT examination has become the most important imaging modality for the diagnosis following abdominal ultrasound and plain radiography, and multi-detector CT has become the standard of care to identify the site, severity, and etiology of obstruction.^[5][6] The recent multi-detector CT is able to clarify the etiology and to help in deciding how to treat, delivering the critical information concerning the level of obstruction, its cause, the viability of the involved bowel loops, and decision-making regarding therapy.^[5]

Quote the prospective numbers: CT successfully diagnosed colonic obstruction in 45 of 47 patients (96% sensitivity), pseudo-obstruction was correctly diagnosed in 26 of 28 patients (93% specificity), CT correctly localized the point of obstruction in 44 of 47 patients (94%), while contrast enema successfully diagnosed obstruction in only 20 of 25 patients (80% sensitivity).^[7] Plain radiography is the usual first film but is insufficient on its own: although abdominal radiography is usually the initial imaging study performed in patients suspected of having large-bowel obstruction, it may not be sufficient to distinguish obstruction from other causes of colonic dilatation.^[4]

CT separates mechanical obstruction from pseudo-obstruction as its first objective — giving clues to differentiate large bowel obstruction from colonic pseudo-obstruction — and describes the common signs of caecal and sigmoid volvulus with tips for a diagnosis sometimes difficult, particularly for caecal volvulus: one of two transition points according to the type of volvulus and the presence of a whirl sign with a torsion of the mesenteric vessels.^[6] Ischaemia on CT or colonoscopy, increased transverse colon diameter, a longer distance from the vascular origin to the obstructed segment, and volvulus rotation of 360 degrees or more were significant predictors of emergency surgical intervention — so read the scan for the operation, not just the diagnosis.^[18]

Malignant obstruction — stent versus surgery

Deliver the bridge-to-surgery RCT meta-analysis first: 8 RCTs with 497 patients, overall mortality within 60 days 9.6% after stent-bridge versus 9.9% after emergency surgery (relative risk 0.99) — no mortality difference — but overall morbidity within 60 days 33.9% versus 51.2% (relative risk 0.59), temporary stoma 33.9% versus 51.4% (relative risk 0.67), permanent stoma 22.2% versus 35.2% (relative risk 0.66), and successful primary anastomosis 70.0% versus 54.1% (relative risk 1.29).^[8]

Defend the technique honestly with the earlier meta-analysis: technical success 70.7 per cent (82 of 116) and clinical success 69.0 per cent (80 of 116), clinical perforation 6.9 per cent (8 of 116) with silent perforation 14 per cent (11 of 77) — and three trials stopped prematurely, one because the emergency surgery group had a significantly increased anastomotic leak rate, and two others because of stent-related complications and increased 30-day morbidity following stent management.^[9] Stent intervention gave significantly higher successful primary anastomosis (risk ratio 1.58) and lower overall stoma rates (risk ratio 0.71).^[9]

The high-quality prospective and randomised evidence adds the curative-subgroup detail: across 27 studies with 3,894 patients there was no significant difference in 3-year and 5-year disease-free and overall survival, while stenting gave less blood loss (mean difference −234.72), higher primary anastomosis rate (risk ratio 1.25), and for curative cases lower 30-day mortality (risk ratio 0.65), lower overall complications (risk ratio 0.65), more lymph nodes harvested (mean difference 2.51), shorter ICU stay (mean difference −2.27) and shorter hospital stay (mean difference −7.24).^[10] The ESCO long-term answer concurs: 144 patients randomised with 115 eligible for analysis (56 stent-bridge, 59 emergency surgery) and median follow-up 37 months showed no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio 0.93), time to progression (hazard ratio 0.81) or disease-free survival (hazard ratio 1.01).^[11] The earlier long-term meta-analysis agrees: across 11 studies with 1,136 patients (432 bridge, 38.0%), overall survival, curative-resection survival, disease-free survival (risk ratio 1.06) and recurrence (risk ratio 1.13) did not differ significantly between bridge and emergency surgery.^[12]

Name the perforation price plainly: the overall rate of stent-related perforation was 8.9%, global recurrence was significantly higher with perforation (41.2 versus 30.8%; odds ratio 1.70), and locoregional recurrence was higher in the perforated group (26.6 versus 12.5%; odds ratio 2.41).^[13] The network evidence positions both bridges: across 19 of 5,225 articles, stenting (risk ratio 0.57) and decompressing stomas (risk ratio 0.46) significantly reduced the permanent stoma rate, while stenting facilitated minimally invasive surgery more frequently (risk ratio 4.10) with lower overall morbidity (risk ratio 0.58).^[14]

Close with the WSES line, quoted because it is the viva answer: for obstructive left colon carcinoma the self-expandable metallic stent, when available, offers interesting advantages as compared to emergency surgery — however, the positioning of stents for surgically treatable causes carries some long-term oncologic disadvantages, which are still under analysis.^[1] Add the two anatomical rules: with regards to obstructive right colon carcinoma, right colectomy represents the procedure of choice; and right-sided loop colostomy is preferable in rectal cancer when preoperative therapies are predicted.^[1]

Emergency surgery — what operation, and Hartmann versus anastomosis

State the WSES emergency-surgery rule first: in the context of emergency surgery, resection and primary anastomosis is preferable to Hartmann's procedure, whenever the characteristics of the patient and the surgeon are permissive.^[1] Then present the Goodbye Hartmann reality check: Hartmann was performed in 697 patients (57.3%) and resection with anastomosis in 384 (31.6%) — Hartmann still dominates practice — with severe complications (Clavien-Dindo 3b or more) higher in the Hartmann group and 30-day mortality higher in Hartmann patients (13.7%), especially with bowel perforation and diffuse peritonitis.^[25] The gap reflects selection — Hartmann absorbs the perforated, contaminated and unstable — which is why the WSES permissiveness clause, not the raw mortality, governs the individual decision.^[1][25]

Consent the Hartmann patient with the reversal numbers: Hartmann's procedure was the most commonly utilized stoma type (72.9%), the stoma reversal rate was 25.0% with median time to reversal 10 months, and Hartmann was associated with a lower chance of stoma reversal than other stoma types including primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy and double-barrelled ostomy (15.7% versus 52.9%).^[26] Hartmann was less commonly performed by colorectal surgeons than by general surgeons (35.3% versus 68.4%).^[26] The Large Bowel Cancer Project adds the historical counselling line: immediate anastomosis in the obstructed left colon had a high clinical leak rate (18 per cent versus 6 per cent elective), there was no survival advantage for either policy, but hospital stay after primary resection was half that of staged.^[3]

Hartmann remains correct for perforation with diffuse faeculent peritonitis, unstable physiology, ischaemic or unprepared bowel, and the non-colorectal surgeon operating at night — the inverse of the anastomosis-preferred pattern (younger, ASA 3 or less, obstruction presentation, no ischaemia, daytime, high-volume surgeon).^[25] Bridge alternatives that avoid emergency resection are the stent where expertise exists, a decompressing stoma with later oncologic colectomy, and the right-sided loop options for rectal cancer facing neoadjuvant therapy.^[1][14]

Sigmoid volvulus — detorsion to definitive surgery

Give the pathway as the rule: as a rule, sigmoid volvulus is decompressed via endoscopy in uncomplicated cases, while surgery is required in complicated cases.^[16] Endoscopic detorsion succeeds in 96% of patients with no complications — then elective surgery must be planned as soon as possible after the first episode, because the death rate was 62% in the no-surgery group versus 32% in the elective-surgery group, 23 of 42 patients without surgery had volvulus recurrence, and no recurrence occurred after surgery.^[15]

Select for elective surgery by fitness: elective surgery is suggested in patients in ASA classes I–III, and the semielective series reported mortality 2.9% with morbidity 14.7%.^[16][17] Counsel the recurrence risk directly: following endoscopic detorsion, sigmoid volvulus recurs in 3%–86% of patients, approximately 13% of which are early recurrence presenting during the first admission period — and early recurrence during the index admission was determined in 34 of 621 patients with successful nonoperative detorsion (5.5%).^[17]

Recognise the patient who needs emergency surgery now: higher C-reactive protein and lactate levels were associated with emergency surgery, and in a cohort with median age 77 years, emergency surgery was required in 34 of 62 patients (53.2%).^[18] The CT predictors are ischaemia on CT or colonoscopy, increased transverse colon diameter, a longer distance from the vascular origin to the obstructed segment, and rotation of 360 degrees or more.^[18]

Caecal and other volvuli

Position caecal volvulus precisely: caecal volvulus is second only to sigmoid volvulus in its frequency of occurrence, diagnostic doubt is not uncommon, nonoperative decompression is rarely achievable, and if gangrene supervenes, mortality rises appreciably.^[19] State the operative rule without hedging: resection is mandatory for gangrene and a grossly distended thin-walled caecum, and caecopexy and caecostomy seem less-effective and more morbid options than resection and anastomosis for viable bowel.^[19]

The held evidence base contains no transverse-colon or bascule-specific outcome numbers, so the fellowship answer stays with the caecal operative rule above and CT assessment of viability — resection for the compromised or grossly distended caecum, resection with anastomosis for viable bowel — rather than inventing a separate algorithm.^[19][6]

Pseudo-obstruction — the Ogilvie pathway

Walk the ladder in order. Stop precipitants, support and decompress first; give neostigmine if there is no response within 1–2 days or if pseudo-obstruction has already reached a critical duration (beyond 3–4 days) or extent (caecal diameter 12 cm or more) — neostigmine leads to durable success in approximately 3 out of 4 patients.^[24] The Ponec numbers anchor the drug: 11 patients randomised to 2.0 mg neostigmine intravenously and 10 to intravenous saline, all with abdominal distension, radiographic colonic dilation with caecal diameter of at least 10 cm and no response to conservative treatment — 10 of the 11 neostigmine patients had prompt colonic decompression versus none of the 10 placebo patients, with median time to response 4 minutes.^[20]

The pooled effect is consistent: across 4 studies with 127 patients (65 treatment, 62 control), single-dose neostigmine effectiveness was 89.2% versus 14.65% (number needed to treat 1).^[21] Handle the neostigmine-versus-colonoscopy debate honestly: in a retrospective-only meta-analysis (3 studies, all retrospective cohorts), 30 of 64 neostigmine patients succeeded (47%) versus 64 of 77 colonoscopic decompressions (83%), with colonoscopy five times more likely to succeed (odds ratio 5.45) — but the guideline positions diverge, with the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommending neostigmine first before colonoscopy while the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus acknowledges the lack of evidence for superiority of either approach.^[22]

Surgery is the last resort: surgery should be considered only as a final option if medical treatments fail or if colonic perforation is suspected, and surgery is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality.^[23]

Special populations

• Elderly and frail: the NELA signal dominates — past 65, 30-day mortality 15.3 versus 4.9% and 90-day mortality 20.4 versus 7.2% — so atypical presentation lowers the imaging threshold, stoma-versus-anastomosis trade-offs are consented with the 25% Hartmann-reversal figure, and post-operative geriatrician review is requested for its mortality association (30-day odds ratio 0.38).^[28][26]
• Rectal cancer obstruction facing neoadjuvant therapy: right-sided loop colostomy is preferable when preoperative therapies are predicted — divert, treat, then resect, rather than resecting first through the emergency.^[1]
• Exam-strategy note (not a literature claim): when the viva adds pregnancy or a low-resource setting to this stem, the scoring move is to restate which principles transfer unchanged (CT-first staging where available, detorse-then-resect for sigmoid volvulus, neostigmine-before-scope for Ogilvie, resection for gangrenous caecum) and which step adapts to context (imaging modality, stent availability, critical-care support) — then ask the examiner which constraint they want tested.

Evidence, guidelines and controversies — the regional picture

• International (WSES, surgeon-led): the 2017 colorectal-emergency guidelines set the CT-first, stent-where-available, anastomosis-when-permissive framework with the right-colectomy and rectal-diversion rules; the 2023 sigmoid-volvulus consensus sets the detorsion-first, elective-resection-after pathway.^[1][2]
• Multinational cohorts: the Large Bowel Cancer Project (4,583 patients, 16% obstructed, 23% in-hospital mortality) is the historical baseline; Goodbye Hartmann (1,215 patients, 204 centres) is the contemporary practice mirror showing Hartmann still dominant at 57.3%.^[3][25]
• RCT and meta-analytic core: stent-bridge versus emergency surgery shows equal mortality with less morbidity and fewer stomas across 8 RCTs, high-quality-only metas and the ESCO long-term follow-up — with the perforation-recurrence price as the quantified counterweight.^{[8][10][11][13]}
• Live controversies: stent-first versus resection-first for the young curable left-sided cancer (short-term wins and ESCO reassurance versus 8.9% perforation with doubled locoregional recurrence); Hartmann-by-default versus anastomosis-when-permissive (practice still 57.3% Hartmann against the WSES preference); and neostigmine-first versus colonoscopy-first for Ogilvie (prospective neostigmine efficacy versus retrospective colonoscopy superiority, guidelines split, no randomised comparison).^{[1][13][25][22]}

Revision summary

Large-bowel obstruction is an abdominal emergency with high morbidity and mortality if left untreated — CT is the best test, establishing diagnosis and cause with 96% sensitivity, 93% pseudo-obstruction specificity and 94% localisation against 80% for contrast enema.^[4][1][7] Malignant obstruction affected 16% of the Large Bowel Cancer Project with splenic-flexure predominance (49%), 23% in-hospital mortality, and 25% versus 45% age-adjusted 5-year survival.^[3] Bridge the stable left-sided cancer with a stent where expertise exists — equal 60-day mortality (9.6 versus 9.9%) with less morbidity (33.9 versus 51.2%), fewer temporary (33.9 versus 51.4%) and permanent stomas (22.2 versus 35.2%), and more primary anastomoses (70.0 versus 54.1%) — with ESCO confirming no long-term survival difference and perforation (8.9%) priced at doubled locoregional recurrence.^[8][11][13] Prefer resection with anastomosis when patient and surgeon are permissive; consent Hartmann with the 25% reversal rate at median 10 months and 13.7% 30-day mortality in contemporary practice.^[1][26][25] Detorse the sigmoid endoscopically (96% success), then resect electively in ASA I–III — no surgery means 62% mortality and majority recurrence.^[15][16] Resect the gangrenous or grossly distended caecum; prefer resection-anastomosis over caecopexy or caecostomy for viable bowel.^[19] Treat Ogilvie with neostigmine (2.0 mg IV; 10 of 11 versus 0 of 10 in 4 minutes; pooled 89.2% single-dose) before the scope, and operate last.^[20][21][23] Score the elderly with NELA/HI, involve the geriatrician, and give every claim its number.^[27][28]

^{[7] [8] [11] [25] [15] [20]}

References29ShowHide

1. [1]Pisano M, Zorcolo L, Merli C, Cimbanassi S, et al. 2017 WSES guidelines on colon and rectal cancer emergencies: obstruction and perforation. World J Emerg Surg, 2018.PMID 30123315
2. [2]Tian BWCA, Vigutto G, Tan E, van Goor H, et al. WSES consensus guidelines on sigmoid volvulus management. World J Emerg Surg, 2023.PMID 37189134
3. [3]Phillips RK, Hittinger R, Fry JS, Fielding LP Malignant large bowel obstruction. Br J Surg, 1985.PMID 3986481
4. [4]Jaffe T, Thompson WM Large-Bowel Obstruction in the Adult: Classic Radiographic and CT Findings, Etiology, and Mimics. Radiology, 2015.PMID 25997131
5. [5]Hayakawa K, Tanikake M, Yoshida S, Urata Y, et al. Radiological diagnosis of large-bowel obstruction: neoplastic etiology. Emerg Radiol, 2013.PMID 23109230
6. [6]Verheyden C, Orliac C, Millet I, Taourel P Large-bowel obstruction: CT findings, pitfalls, tips and tricks. Eur J Radiol, 2020.PMID 32711335
7. [7]Frager D, Rovno HD, Baer JW, Bashist B, et al. Prospective evaluation of colonic obstruction with computed tomography. Abdom Imaging, 1998.PMID 9516501
8. [8]Arezzo A, Passera R, Lo Secco G, Verra M, et al. Stent as bridge to surgery for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction reduces adverse events and stoma rate compared with emergency surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc, 2017.PMID 28392363
9. [9]Tan CJ, Dasari BVM, Gardiner K Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of self-expanding metallic stents as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant left-sided large bowel obstruction. Br J Surg, 2012.PMID 22261931
10. [10]Spannenburg L, Sanchez Gonzalez M, Brooks A, Wei S, et al. Surgical outcomes of colonic stents as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of high quality prospective and randomised controlled trials. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2020.PMID 32418754
11. [11]Arezzo A, Forcignanò E, Bonino MA, et al. Long-term Oncologic Results After Stenting as a Bridge to Surgery Versus Emergency Surgery for Malignant Left-sided Colonic Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (ESCO Trial). Ann Surg, 2020.PMID 32833762
12. [12]Matsuda A, Miyashita M, Matsumoto S, Matsutani T, et al. Comparison of long-term outcomes of colonic stent as bridge to surgery and emergency surgery for malignant large-bowel obstruction: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol, 2015.PMID 25120255
13. [13]Balciscueta I, Balciscueta Z, Uribe N, et al. Long-term outcomes of stent-related perforation in malignant colon obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2020.PMID 32572603
14. [14]McHugh FT, Ryan EJ, Ryan OK, Tan J, et al. Management Strategies for Malignant Left-Sided Colonic Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Propensity Score Matching Studies. Dis Colon Rectum, 2024.PMID 38557484
15. [15]Quénéhervé L, Dagouat C, Le Rhun M, et al. Outcomes of first-line endoscopic management for patients with sigmoid volvulus. Dig Liver Dis, 2019.PMID 30377062
16. [16]Atamanalp SS, Atamanalp RS Determination of patients requiring elective surgery following successful endoscopic detorsion in sigmoid volvulus. Pak J Med Sci, 2017.PMID 29492092
17. [17]Aksungur N, Disci E, Peksoz R, Atamanalp SS Management of early recurrence following successful endoscopic detorsion in sigmoid volvulus. Pak J Med Sci, 2024.PMID 39416644
18. [18]Girgin T, Erozkan K, Basci F, Karabag BC, et al. Optimizing management of sigmoid volvulus: predictors of surgical intervention and early recurrence. Eur J Radiol, 2026.PMID 42167002
19. [19]Madiba TE, Thomson SR The management of cecal volvulus. Dis Colon Rectum, 2002.PMID 11852342
20. [20]Ponec RJ, Saunders MD, Kimmey MB Neostigmine for the treatment of acute colonic pseudo-obstruction. N Engl J Med, 1999.PMID 10403850
21. [21]Valle RGL, Godoy FL Neostigmine for acute colonic pseudo-obstruction: A meta-analysis. Ann Med Surg (Lond), 2014.PMID 25568788
22. [22]Demetriou G, Ghoneim A, Dattani M, Bedford M, et al. Neostigmine Versus Colonoscopic Decompression for Acute Colonic Pseudo-Obstruction Not Resolving With Conservative Measures: A Meta-Analysis. J Surg Res, 2025.PMID 40664115
23. [23]Pereira P, Djeudji F, Leduc P, Fanget F, et al. Ogilvie's syndrome-acute colonic pseudo-obstruction. J Visc Surg, 2015.PMID 25770746
24. [24]Keller J, Layer P [Acute colonic pseudo-obstruction: Ogilvie syndrome]. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed, 2015.PMID 26400054
25. [25]Perrone G, Giuffrida M, Abu-Zidan F, Kruger VF, et al. Goodbye Hartmann trial: a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study on the current use of a surgical procedure developed a century ago. World J Emerg Surg, 2024.PMID 38627831
26. [26]Gurluler E, Aktas AA, Isik O, Yilmazlar T Utilization and outcomes of Hartmann's procedure in emergency left colon surgery: evaluating postoperative complications and stoma reversal rates. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 2024.PMID 39297591
27. [27]Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Waterman J, Miller B, et al. Hajibandeh Index versus NELA score in predicting mortality following emergency laparotomy: A retrospective Cohort Study. Int J Surg, 2022.PMID 35533852
28. [28]Aitken RM, Partridge JS, Oliver CM, Murray D, et al. Older patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: observations from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) years 1-4. Age Ageing, 2020.PMID 32484859
29. [29]Catena F, De Simone B, Coccolini F, Di Saverio S, et al. Bowel obstruction: a narrative review for all physicians. World J Emerg Surg, 2019.PMID 31168315