WSES-PSOGI-SICO evidence-infomed guidelines on surgical emergencies in patients with peritoneal surface malignancies: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and structured expert consensus.
28 affiliations
- 1General Surgery Department, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Via Golgi 19, 27100, Pavia, Italy. [email protected].
- 2Acute Care and Trauma Surgery, ASST GOM Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
- 3Department of Surgery, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al‑Ain, United Arab Emirates.
- 4General Surgery Department, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy.
- 5Division of Trauma/Acute Care Surgery, Scripps Clinic Medical Group, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, USA.
- 6Dept of General and Emergency Surgery, Bufalini Hospital AUSL Romagna, Cesena, Italy.
- 7Dept of Medical and Surgical Sciences Alma Mater, Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
- 8ASST Cremona - UOC General Surgery, Cremona, Italy.
- 9General and Emergency Surgery Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo Dei Tintori, Monza, Italy.
- 10School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
- 11General Surgery Department, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Via Golgi 19, 27100, Pavia, Italy.
- 12Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
- 13Collegium Medicum, SAN University, Lodz, Poland.
- 14General Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy.
- 15Venice School of Management, Ca' Foscari University of Venice, 30123, Venice, Italy.
- 16Surgical Unit of Peritoneum and Retroperitoneum, Division of General Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli - IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
- 174th Department of Surgery, General Hospital "George Papanikolaou", Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 57010, Exochi, Greece.
- 18General Surgery, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Kadikoy, Istanbul, Turkey.
- 19Department of Surgical Science, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
- 20Department of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, India.
- 21Surgical Oncology of Digestive Tract, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy.
- 22Programma Di Chirurgia Tumori del Peritoneo, UOC Chirurgia d'urgenza Ed Oncologica, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Modena, Modena, Italy.
- 23Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
- 24Department of General Surgery, AUSL Piacenza, Piacenza, Italy.
- 25Digestive Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit, CHU de Nice, Nice, France.
- 26MEDİCANA International Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
- 27Department of Surgery, Georgetown University/MedStar Health in Washington DC, Washington, DC, USA.
- 28Program in Peritoneal Surface Malignancy, Washington Cancer Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
Background
Peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) are primary or secondary neoplastic deposits involving the peritoneum and are commonly associated with colorectal, gastric, appendiceal, gynecological, pancreaticobiliary, and other intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal cancers. Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is one of the most frequent and clinically consequential emergency presentations in this population, yet diagnostic and therapeutic pathways remain heterogeneous. We aimed to develop evidence-informed recommendations for emergency management of MBO in patients with PSM by integrating a systematic review, meta-analysis and a structured international expert consensus process.Methods
This systematic review, meta-analysis, and Delphi consensus followed PRISMA, Cochrane, and relevant MOOSE reporting principles. PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to June 2025 (English language). Five predefined PICO/PIRT questions addressed: (1) the diagnostic role of CT, plain abdominal X-ray, or Gastrografin-enhanced X-ray in PSM-related MBO; (2) nonoperative medical management versus surgical or endoscopic therapy; (3) surgical versus endoscopic treatment after failure of nonoperative management; (4) bowel resection versus stoma or bypass in surgical candidates; and (5) endoscopic stenting versus endoscopic ultrasound-guided bypass with lumen-apposing metal stents in endoscopic candidates. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I for comparative non-randomized studies and MINORS for non-comparative studies; certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE. Random-effects meta-analyses (REML) produced odds ratios (OR), mean differences (MD), pooled means, or pooled proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI); heterogeneity was summarized using I2, τ2, and 95% prediction intervals. Evidence profiles informed statements voted on by the WSES-PSOGI-SICO expert panel during the 2025 WSES Congress.Results
No comparative diagnostic study evaluated abdominal X-ray or Gastrografin-enhanced X-ray in PSM-related MBO; two small retrospective CT-based series supported contrast-enhanced CT for mapping obstruction and excluding urgent complications, but no diagnostic meta-analysis was possible. For medical versus procedural treatment, medical management was associated with lower morbidity (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07-0.39) and shorter length of stay (MD - 9.48 days, 95% CI - 12.65 to -6.32), while success, mortality, and overall survival remained inconclusive. For surgery versus endoscopy, surgery showed higher clinical success (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.47-4.50), whereas endoscopy shortened hospital stay (MD 3.35 days, 95% CI 1.46-5.23); mortality did not differ (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70-1.49). Among surgical options, resection showed a signal toward higher perioperative mortality than bypass or ostomy (OR 3.55, 95% CI 1.45-8.68). Endoscopic stenting showed a pooled clinical success rate of 0.71 (95% CI 0.62-0.79), whereas evidence on LAMS was limited to one retrospective study. All guideline statements reached 100% agreement among voting participants.Conclusions
Despite the low certainty of available evidence, integration of systematic review findings with expert consensus provides a structured international framework to support decision-making in emergency presentations of PSM-related MBO. These consensus-based recommendations are intended to assist clinicians in harmonizing care across peripheral and referral hospitals, while emphasizing individualized multidisciplinary judgement and the need for future higher-quality evidence.
Related
- Minimally Invasive Versus Open CRS/HIPEC for Peritoneal Surface Malignancies: Postoperative Recovery and Long-Term Outcomes—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- LLM-Based Extraction of Clinical Practice Guidelines into Structured Arguments
- Competence and Readiness of Physicians in Saudi Arabia in Managing In-Flight Medical Emergencies: A Systematic Review
- Incidence of Osteoradionecrosis and Dental Implant Survival in Patients With Irradiated Head and Neck Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- Non‐Relapse Mortality With Bispecific Antibodies in Hematologic Malignancies: A Dual Systematic Review and Pharmacovigilance Analysis
BibTeX
@article{fugazzola2026wsespsogisico,
title = {{WSES-PSOGI-SICO evidence-infomed guidelines on surgical emergencies in patients with peritoneal surface malignancies: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and structured expert consensus.}},
author = {Paola Fugazzola and Stefano Granieri and Fikri Abu-Zidan and Niccolò Allievi and Walter L Biffl and Fausto Catena and Andrea Celotti and Marco Ceresoli and Lorenzo Cobianchi and Federico Coccolini and Andrea Dagnoni and Francesca Dal Mas and Andrea Di Giorgio and Rebecca Filios and Simone Frassini and Ahmed Ghaly and Orestis Ioannidis and Arda Isik and Nikolaos Markou-Pappas and Daniele Perrina and Michele Pisano and Mauro Podda and Ramakrishan Seshadri and Antonio Sommariva and Matteo Tomasoni and Marco Vaira and Jacopo Viganò and Erin Ward and Mario Giuffrida and Andrea Chierici and Cengizhan Yiğitler and Steven Wexner and Paul Sugarbaker and Luca Ansaloni},
journal = {World journal of emergency surgery : WJES},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1186/s13017-026-00718-7},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42958307},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - WSES-PSOGI-SICO evidence-infomed guidelines on surgical emergencies in patients with peritoneal surface malignancies: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and structured expert consensus.
AU - Paola Fugazzola
AU - Stefano Granieri
AU - Fikri Abu-Zidan
AU - Niccolò Allievi
AU - Walter L Biffl
AU - Fausto Catena
AU - Andrea Celotti
AU - Marco Ceresoli
AU - Lorenzo Cobianchi
AU - Federico Coccolini
AU - Andrea Dagnoni
AU - Francesca Dal Mas
AU - Andrea Di Giorgio
AU - Rebecca Filios
AU - Simone Frassini
AU - Ahmed Ghaly
AU - Orestis Ioannidis
AU - Arda Isik
AU - Nikolaos Markou-Pappas
AU - Daniele Perrina
AU - Michele Pisano
AU - Mauro Podda
AU - Ramakrishan Seshadri
AU - Antonio Sommariva
AU - Matteo Tomasoni
AU - Marco Vaira
AU - Jacopo Viganò
AU - Erin Ward
AU - Mario Giuffrida
AU - Andrea Chierici
AU - Cengizhan Yiğitler
AU - Steven Wexner
AU - Paul Sugarbaker
AU - Luca Ansaloni
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/24
JO - World journal of emergency surgery : WJES
DO - 10.1186/s13017-026-00718-7
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42958307
AB - Background Peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) are primary or secondary neoplastic deposits involving the peritoneum and are commonly associated with colorectal, gastric, appendiceal, gynecological, pancreaticobiliary, and other intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal cancers. Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is one of the most frequent and clinically consequential emergency presentations in this population, yet diagnostic and therapeutic pathways remain heterogeneous. We aimed to develop evidence-informed recommendations for emergency management of MBO in patients with PSM by integrating a systematic review, meta-analysis and a structured international expert consensus process.Methods This systematic review, meta-analysis, and Delphi consensus followed PRISMA, Cochrane, and relevant MOOSE reporting principles. PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to June 2025 (English language). Five predefined PICO/PIRT questions addressed: (1) the diagnostic role of CT, plain abdominal X-ray, or Gastrografin-enhanced X-ray in PSM-related MBO; (2) nonoperative medical management versus surgical or endoscopic therapy; (3) surgical versus endoscopic treatment after failure of nonoperative management; (4) bowel resection versus stoma or bypass in surgical candidates; and (5) endoscopic stenting versus endoscopic ultrasound-guided bypass with lumen-apposing metal stents in endoscopic candidates. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I for comparative non-randomized studies and MINORS for non-comparative studies; certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE. Random-effects meta-analyses (REML) produced odds ratios (OR), mean differences (MD), pooled means, or pooled proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI); heterogeneity was summarized using I2, τ2, and 95% prediction intervals. Evidence profiles informed statements voted on by the WSES-PSOGI-SICO expert panel during the 2025 WSES Congress.Results No comparative diagnostic study evaluated abdominal X-ray or Gastrografin-enhanced X-ray in PSM-related MBO; two small retrospective CT-based series supported contrast-enhanced CT for mapping obstruction and excluding urgent complications, but no diagnostic meta-analysis was possible. For medical versus procedural treatment, medical management was associated with lower morbidity (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07-0.39) and shorter length of stay (MD - 9.48 days, 95% CI - 12.65 to -6.32), while success, mortality, and overall survival remained inconclusive. For surgery versus endoscopy, surgery showed higher clinical success (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.47-4.50), whereas endoscopy shortened hospital stay (MD 3.35 days, 95% CI 1.46-5.23); mortality did not differ (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70-1.49). Among surgical options, resection showed a signal toward higher perioperative mortality than bypass or ostomy (OR 3.55, 95% CI 1.45-8.68). Endoscopic stenting showed a pooled clinical success rate of 0.71 (95% CI 0.62-0.79), whereas evidence on LAMS was limited to one retrospective study. All guideline statements reached 100% agreement among voting participants.Conclusions Despite the low certainty of available evidence, integration of systematic review findings with expert consensus provides a structured international framework to support decision-making in emergency presentations of PSM-related MBO. These consensus-based recommendations are intended to assist clinicians in harmonizing care across peripheral and referral hospitals, while emphasizing individualized multidisciplinary judgement and the need for future higher-quality evidence.
SN - 1749-7922
ER -