Right-sided malignant colonic obstruction the use of a self expanding metal stent to facilitate laparoscopic surgery: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The use of self expanding metals stents (SEMS) is established for management of left sided colonic obstruction. Its use for right sided malignant colonic obstructing (RMCO) tumours is less established with risks related to perforation of the colon. The use of a right sided colonic stent can be used to decompress the colon or small bowel and facilitate subsequent laparoscopic resection. A 68 year old gentleman presented with a history of right upper quadrant pain associated with fever, chills, loss of weight and abdominal distention. Examination revealed a tender right upper quadrant mass, workup revealed an empyema of the gallbladder with an associated colonic mass. The sepsis was controlled via percutaneous transhepatic cholecystomy and subsequent colonscopy revealed an obstructing hepatic flexure colonic tumour and multiple large left sided colonic polyps not amenable to snare excision. This tumour was stented at endoscopy under fluoroscopic control. The patient was taken to theatre and a laparoscopic subtotal colectomy with complete mesocolic excision and en bloc cholecystectomy was performed. In this case report, we demonstrate the use of SEMS for RMCO as a bridge for laparoscopic subtotal colectomy in a patient with right sided colonic cancer. This case also presented a unique challenge with the associated gallbladder empyema due to cystic duct obstruction. The stenting for RMCO and subsequent laparoscopic subtotal-colectomy was performed successfully for this patient, showing promise in the future utility of SEMS placement in RMCO. This report therefore adds to increasing evidence that emphasize the viability of SEMS in RMCO as a bridge to laparoscopic surgery for more proximal obstructions. According to our literature search, this is the third reported case of laparoscopic colectomy following SEMS for RMCO. Highlights:
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".