The Cost-Effectiveness of Colonic Stenting as a Bridge to Curative Surgery in Patients with Acute Left-Sided Malignant Colonic Obstruction: A Canadian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past several years, colonic stenting has been advocated as an alternative to the traditional surgical approach for relieving acute malignant left-sided colonic obstruction. The aim of the present study was to determine the most cost-effective strategy in a Canadian setting. patients and METHODS: A decision analytical model was developed to compare three competing strategies: CS - emergent colonic stenting followed by elective resective surgery and reanastomosis; RS - emergent resective surgery followed by creation of either a diverting colostomy or primary reanastomosis; and DC - emergent diverting colostomy followed by elective resective surgery and reanastomosis. The costs were estimated from the perspective of the Manitoba provincial health plan. RESULTS: The use of CS resulted in fewer total operative procedures per patient (mean CS 1.03, RS 1.32, DC 1.9), lower mortality rate (CS 5%, RS 11%, DC 13%) and lower likelihood of requiring a permanent stoma (CS 7%, RS 14%, DC 14%). CS is slightly more expensive than DC, but less costly than RS (DC 11,851 dollars, CS 13,164 dollars, RS 13,820 dollars). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with the use of CS versus DC is 1,415 dollars to prevent a temporary stoma, 1,516 dollars to prevent an additional operation and 15,734 dollars to prevent an additional death. CONCLUSIONS: Colonic stenting for patients with acute colonic obstruction secondary to a resectable colonic tumour is comparable in cost with surgical options, and reduces the likelihood of requiring both temporary and permanent stomas. Colonic stenting should be offered as the initial therapeutic modality for Canadian colorectal cancer patients presenting with acute obstruction as a bridge to definitive RS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".