Management of malignant bowel obstruction in sub-Saharan Africa: A structured narrative review of evidence,contextual challenges and clinical practice gaps

Abstract

Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a known, devastating complication of advanced intra-abdominal malignancy. International management guidelines are derived from high-income settings and rely on resources: computed tomography, self-expanding metal stents, total parenteral nutrition, specialist palliative care, that are inconsistently available in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Clinicians in LMICs therefore manage MBO within a fundamentally different diagnostic and therapeutic landscape, usually without context-specific guidance. Surgery dominates management but carries high morbidity and mortality, particularly in patients with ECOG performance status ≥3, serum albumin <30 g/L, ascites and peritoneal carcinomatosis. Emerging LMIC-based data confirm these patterns: a prospective Kenyan series reported 30-day postoperative mortality of 10.8% for malignant obstruction, while a South African review of 510 obstructed colorectal cancer patients found stomas were used twice as frequently as stents, the reverse of high-income country practice. No prognostic tool has been validated in LMIC populations. MBO care in LMICs demands a recalibration of international evidence to local realities. Our proposed context-adapted decision framework offers a structured, evidence-informed approach to rational surgical decision-making that can be applied immediately, even in settings lacking advanced imaging or endoscopic services.

Keywords

Malignant bowel obstruction sub-Saharan Africa surgical palliation resource-limited settings peritoneal carcinomatosis cervical cancer clinical decision algorithm

Introduction

Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a clinical syndrome defined by mechanical or functional impairment of bowel transit in a patient with intra-peritoneal malignancy or an extra-abdominal primary with peritoneal metastases. It complicates an estimated 3–15% of all cancers, but the incidence rises to 25–40% in colorectal cancer, 20–51% in epithelial ovarian cancer and 6–19% in gastric cancer.^1–3 The prognosis is uniformly poor: median overall survival after onset ranges from one to three months, and in inoperable patients it is often fewer than four weeks.^1,4 In an Australian tertiary cancer centre series, 40% of patients with MBO died within 90 days of index admission, and hypoalbuminaemia (OR 3.33 for albumin <30 g/L) together with peritoneal carcinomatosis (OR 5.80) were the strongest independent predictors of early death.⁵

Current international management guidelines are built almost entirely on evidence generated in high-income countries (HICs).^2,6,7 They assume routine availability of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), self-expanding metal stents (SEMS), total parenteral nutrition (TPN), interventional radiology and multidisciplinary palliative care teams. Even in well-resourced environments, however, the evidence base is thin: a systematic review of 15 studies involving 882 patients with malignant small-bowel obstruction found no randomised controlled trials, and 30-day surgical mortality in operated patients ranged from 13% to 28%.⁸

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face a rapidly escalating cancer burden super-imposed on persistent late-stage presentation. An estimated 70–80% of cancers in LMICs are incurable at diagnosis, owing to limited screening, low health literacy and inadequate referral pathways.⁹ A systematic review of delays in cancer care across LMICs identified that the costs of diagnostic and treatment services, geographical inaccessibility and poor health literacy were the dominant drivers of late presentation, with median patient-associated delays ranging 2- 24 months across tumour types.¹⁰ Cervical cancer, with an age-standardised incidence of approximately 40 per 100,000 women, remains the leading cause of female cancer death in 21 of 48 LMICs, more than ten times the WHO elimination target of 4 per 100,000.¹¹ In contrast to HICs, where bowel obstruction from cervical cancer is rare, this cancer in LMICs frequently causes rectosigmoid obstruction through extrinsic compression, a mechanism for which SEMS is technically ineffective even when available.¹² Ovarian cancer-related MBO in LMICs typically occurs in the absence of any prior cytoreductive surgery or systemic chemotherapy, and with profound nutritional depletion. Colorectal cancer, which is increasing in incidence across the region, presents as a surgical emergency in nearly 33% of cases and is associated with 30-day postoperative mortality rates that consistently exceed 20%.¹³ A recent scoping review of emergency colorectal cancer presentation across Africa documented rates varying from 8.3-64.9%, with the highest figures reported from Nigerian and Sudanese cohorts, and confirmed that surgery remains the mainstay of treatment while endoscopic stenting was only available as a treatment option in parts of South Africa.¹⁴

The diagnostic and therapeutic infrastructure gap is structural. A survey of ten Nigerian secondary hospitals found that seven had no CT scanner, and the single existing machine was inoperable.¹⁵ SEMS, TPN and specialist palliative care services are similarly scarce or absent. Consequently, LMICs clinicians must navigate the management of MBO by a combination of extrapolation from HIC evidence, institutional habit and clinical improvisation, without the staging precision, prognostic scores or therapeutic optionality that their HIC counterparts command. Palliative surgery in resource-constrained African settings has been described as a largely undocumented activity, carried out without protocols or outcome data.¹⁶

In response to this evidence-practice chasm, our review aims to (i) synthesise the available global evidence on MBO epidemiology, diagnosis, prognostic assessment and management; (ii) critically appraise the applicability of this evidence, integrating published Africa-specific data from surgical, oncological and palliative care settings across the continent; and (iii) propose a structured, resource-stratified clinical decision algorithm that is practical and applicable at the bedside with only serum albumin as a laboratory investigation.

Methods

Ours is a structured narrative review. To minimise selection bias, systematic search principles were embedded, and the selection process is documented according to PRISMA principles in a flow diagram (Fig. 1).

A structured literature search was performed across PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, African Journals Online and the Cochrane Library for studies published in English between January 2000 and January 2026, using: “malignant bowel obstruction,” “malignant intestinal obstruction,” “bowel obstruction” AND “cancer” or “malignancy,” and “intestinal obstruction” AND “neoplasm,” and adding: “sub-Saharan Africa,” specific country names, “low-income,” and “resource-limited,” “palliative surgery,” “colostomy,” “bowel diversion,” “self-expanding metal stent,” “octreotide,” “palliative care,” “peritoneal carcinomatosis.” Reference lists of included systematic reviews, meta-analyses and clinical guidelines were hand-searched. GLOBOCAN 2022 and the IARC Cancer Atlas were accessed for regional epidemiology.

Studies were included if they were primary research articles (observational cohorts, case series, randomised trials), systematic reviews, meta-analyses or clinical guidelines reporting on the epidemiology, diagnosis, management or outcomes of MBO in adult patients (≥18 years) with intra-abdominal or pelvic malignancy or peritoneal metastases. Publications that focused exclusively on benign bowel obstruction, paediatric populations or in a language other than English were excluded. Conference abstracts and grey literature from African surgical and oncological meetings were also considered where they provided extractable MBO-relevant data.

Results

Our search identified 68 titles and abstracts, of which 53 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, with 37 satisfying all inclusion criteria (fig. 1). Three grey literature sources were included for contextual relevance but were not weighted the same as peer-reviewed studies in the synthesis.

Figure 1.

PRISMA-informed flow diagram.

Data were extracted into a standardised form and synthesised thematically across the following domains: epidemiology & aetiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation & diagnosis, prognostic assessment & patient selection, non-surgical management and surgical management. For each domain, global evidence was reviewed first, followed by an explicit discussion of its applicability and limitations in the LMIC setting. Where LMICs-specific data existed, these were used to frame the contextual discussion; where none was available, the evidence gap was explicitly acknowledged. Because of marked heterogeneity in study design, populations and outcome definitions, no statistical pooling was performed. The resource-stratified clinical algorithm was developed inductively from the synthesised evidence.

Table 1 presents the causative malignancy in MBO with global incidence data and LMIC-specific contextual notes. Highlights are: (1) cervical cancer as a major cause of MBO in LMICs; (2) ovarian cancer-related MBO in the absence of prior cytoreductive surgery or systemic chemotherapy, with profound nutritional depletion^5,17; and (3) unknown primary cancer.¹⁸ A younger age at presentation for colorectal cancer in LMICs is seen (peak c.44 years)^19,20 with (25–31%) presenting as surgical emergencies.^13,14

Table 1.

Causative malignancies in MBO, global incidence data with sub-Saharan African contextual notes.

Primary malignancy	Global incidence in MBO	LMIC disease profile	LMIC-specific clinical note
Ovarian cancer (epithelial)	20–51% of ovarian cancer cases^3,21	High; FIGO III–IV dominant	Absent screening = advanced-stage presentation universal; peritoneal carcinomatosis the operative mechanism; no prior debulking or chemotherapy in most LMICs cases at MBO onset
Colorectal cancer	8–40% of CRC cases^22,23	Increasing; urban bias; younger age at diagnosis	Emergency CRC presentation: 30.7% of cases; 30-day postoperative mortality 23.2%; peak age ∼44 years¹³; rising incidence confirmed over 40-year Nigerian data¹⁴
Cervical cancer	Uncommon in HIC (extrinsic mechanism)	Major cause; incidence ∼40/100,000 women	SEMS ineffective for extrinsic compression; surgical decompression the only viable option; advanced FIGO IIB–IVB at presentation the norm; largely absent from HIC management guidelines¹¹
Gastric cancer	6–19% of MBO cases globally⁶	Higher in East Africa; diffuse subtype common	Diffuse/linitis plastica subtype favours peritoneal spread; rapid trajectory; tissue diagnosis often absent in LMICs; high operative mortality
Extra-abdominal primaries (breast, lung, melanoma)	Minority; breast most common via peritoneal seeding	Breast cancer increasing in LMICs	Peritoneal involvement from breast cancer documented in LMICs; limited staging capacity means extent of peritoneal disease often underestimated pre-operatively
Unknown primary	Small minority in HIC (workup complete at diagnosis)	Higher proportion in LMICs	Tissue diagnosis absent at presentation in significant subset; operative decisions based on clinical and intraoperative findings; highlights need for LMIC-specific decision algorithms
Peritoneal carcinomatosis (all primaries)	72% of MBO cases had radiological carcinomatosis⁵	Very common; frequently the operative finding	Multi-level obstruction; precludes surgical cure; independently associated with OR 5.80 for 90-day death⁵; CT-limited staging in LMICs means carcinomatosis extent often confirmed only at laparotomy

Table 2 presents diagnostic modalities for MBO, comparing performance characteristics, LMIC availability and clinical roles. Plain abdominal X-ray (sensitivity 50–80%) remains the most widely available first-line screening tool. Abdominal ultrasound, available in most LMIC secondary hospitals, reliably demonstrates ascites, hepatic metastases, pelvic masses and gross bowel dilatation but cannot stage peritoneal carcinomatosis with surgical precision.²⁴ The table supports a pragmatic, resource-stratified diagnostic approach prioritising clinical assessment, including mandatory bedside ECOG performance status grading, physical examination for ascites and cachexia and serum albumin measurement.

Table 2.

Diagnostic modalities for MBO, performance characteristics, LMIC availability and clinical role.

Modality	Sensitivity	Specificity	LMIC availability	Role in LMIC MBO practice
Plain abdominal radiography	50–80%	Moderate	Widely available	First-line screening in all LMICs centres. Confirms obstruction when positive; does not exclude when negative. Cannot identify aetiology, ischaemia or peritoneal disease. Should be obtained in all patients regardless of subsequent imaging plan.
CT abdomen/pelvis (contrast-enhanced)	≥96%	≥93%	Major referral centres only; frequently unavailable or inoperable or no radiologists for interpretation	Gold standard. Identifies level, cause, complications and peritoneal disease burden. Provides essential pre-operative staging. Prioritise for all patients where accessible. CT confirms ischaemia, the only absolute surgical emergency indicator beyond perforation.
Abdominal ultrasound	Moderate (bowel-limited)	Moderate	Available in most LMICs secondary hospitals	Primary cross-sectional tool in the absence of CT. Reliably demonstrates ascites, hepatic metastases, pelvic masses and gross bowel dilatation. Limited by operator dependence and gas artefact. Cannot stage peritoneal disease accurately.
Water-soluble contrast study (gastrografin)	Moderate	Moderate	Where fluoroscopy is available	Useful in partial obstruction – diagnostic and potentially therapeutic. Preferred over barium (absorbable; safe if perforation). Available in some LMICs tertiary centres. Not appropriate in suspected complete obstruction.
Flexible endoscopy	High (colorectal)	High	Tertiary referral centres only	Tissue diagnosis and SEMS assessment in colorectal MBO. Not needed if operative diagnosis is certain. Limited availability means rarely part of LMICs MBO assessment outside of major cancer centres.
MRI abdomen/pelvis	High (soft tissue)	High	Very limited; not practical for acute MBO	No practical role in acute LMICs MBO management. More expensive, slower and not superior to CT for bowel obstruction detection or complication identification.

Table 3 synthesises evidence-based predictors of poor surgical outcome in MBO with their applicability in LMICs, where no prognostic scoring system has been validated. The strongest, most consistently replicated predictors include ECOG performance status ≥3 (median survival 27 days),⁴ serum albumin <30 g/L (odds ratio 3.33 for 90-day death),^5,25 peritoneal carcinomatosis (odds ratio 5.80),⁵ gross ascites,^2,26 multi-level obstruction^12,27 and multiple malnutrition markers.²⁸ The Kenyan prospective series,²⁹ the only prospective LMIC study specifically examining surgical outcomes of malignant intestinal obstruction, reported 30-day postoperative mortality of 10.8% in a cohort where 62.7% of tumours were T4 and 57.6% had metastatic disease at presentation.

Table 3.

Evidence-based predictors of poor outcome in MBO surgery – clinical applicability in LMICs.

Prognostic variable	Evidence source	Effect/finding	LMIC applicability
ECOG PS ≥3	Wright et al. (2010)	Median OS 27 days; dominant predictor on multivariate analysis	Formally scored rarely in LMICs; 30-s bedside assessment; should be routine and documented at MBO admission
Hypoalbuminaemia (<30 g/L)	O'Rourke et al. (2025); Antoun et al. (2009)	OR 3.33 for 90-day death; strongest nutritional predictor of major complications on multivariate analysis	Serum albumin available in most LMIC tertiary labs; must be measured pre-operatively in all MBO patients
Peritoneal carcinomatosis	O'Rourke et al. (2025); Miller et al. (2021)	OR 5.80 for 90-day death; re-obstruction rate up to 50% even after surgery	CT-dependent for formal staging; clinical/ultrasound surrogate: gross ascites + palpable masses; confirmed at laparotomy in LMICs
Gross ascites (>2 L)	Zanatto et al. (2022); Pálsdóttir et al. (2023)	Independent clinical predictor of poor prognosis; part of multiple scoring systems	Detectable by clinical examination; no investigation required; universally assessable in LMICs
Multiple malnutrition markers (BMI + albumin + weight loss)	Sathianathen et al. (2019)	OR 5.47 for major complication with all three markers versus OR 1.5–2.0 with single marker	All three components assessable at bedside; MUST score calculation possible without equipment
Multi-site obstruction	Hsu et al. (2019); Miller et al. (2021)	Precludes surgical correction; hallmark of peritoneal carcinomatosis	CT-dependent for confirmation; suspected clinically when plain AXR or ultrasound shows diffuse gas without focal transition point
Malnutrition risk by MUST	La Torre et al. (2013); Gustafsson et al. (2019)	HR 2.66 for overall morbidity; fourfold longer hospitalisation in high-risk versus low-risk patients	MUST components (BMI, weight loss %, acute illness) accessible at bedside without equipment; should be integrated into MBO pre-op assessment
Short interval from cancer diagnosis to obstruction	Zanatto et al. (2022)	Independent predictor of poor surgical prognosis – rapid disease progression	Obtainable from clinical history; particularly relevant in LMICs where prior oncological treatment records may be unavailable
Late-phase intervention (recurrent/relapsed disease)	Pálsdóttir et al. (2023)	HR 4.46 for death; median OS 3 months after intervention at relapse	Most LMIC MBO patients fall into this category by definition; must recalibrate operative intent accordingly

Table 4 details pharmacological agents for non-surgical MBO management with mechanisms, dosing, evidence levels and LMIC applicability. Hyoscine butylbromide (40–120 mg/day IV or SC) is the first-line antisecretory agent in LMICs, being low-cost, widely available and on essential medicines lists.^2,6 Dexamethasone (8–16 mg/day IV) provides dual anti-oedema and antiemetic effects.²⁷ Haloperidol (0.5–2 mg qds IV/SC) is the preferred antiemetic in complete obstruction as it lacks prokinetic activity.^6,7 Total parenteral nutrition has no evidence-supported role in routine MBO management, being far too costly for the benefit obtained.

Table 4.

Pharmacological agents for non-surgical MBO management – evidence base, dosing and LMIC applicability.

Agent	Class	Dose/route	Evidence level	LMICs note
Hyoscine butylbromide	Antisecretory anticholinergic	40–120 mg/day IV or SC	Grade B (Level II)	First-line LMIC agent. On essential medicines list. Low cost, injectable, widely available. Preferred initial antisecretory.
Octreotide	Somatostatin analogue	0.2–0.9 mg/day SC in 2–3 divided doses	Grade B; one RCT inconclusive	Preferred HIC first-line. Limited LMIC availability; prohibitively expensive; requires cold chain. Reserve for centres where accessible.
Dexamethasone	Corticosteroid	8–16 mg/day IV in 1–2 doses	Grade B (Level II); NNT = 6 for MBO resolution	Cornerstone of LMICs MBO pharmacological protocol. Universally available, low cost, dual antiemetic + anti-oedema action.
Haloperidol	Antiemetic (D2 antagonist)	0.5–2 mg 6-hourly IV or SC; max 5 mg/24 h	Expert consensus; standard practice	Primary antiemetic for MBO. Available across LMICs. Safe in both partial and complete obstruction.
Metoclopramide	Prokinetic antiemetic	30–40 mg/day IV or SC	Grade B for partial obstruction only	Available in LMICs. Contraindicated in complete mechanical obstruction – risk of perforation. Partial obstruction only.
Morphine	Opioid analgesic	1–2 mg IV/SC q4 h PRN; titrate to effect	WHO analgesic ladder; expert consensus	Oral morphine available in Uganda (Hospice Africa Uganda programme). Variable access elsewhere in LMICs. Undertreated pain is ethically unacceptable.
Ondansetron	5-HT3 antagonist	4–8 mg IV or sublingual PRN	Expert consensus; second-line antiemetic	Increasing availability in LMIC tertiary centres. Reserve for haloperidol-refractory nausea. Inconsistently stocked.

Table 5 summarises surgical procedures for MBO with indications, LMIC feasibility, operative risk and expected outcomes. Hartmann's procedure is the workhorse emergency colorectal procedure for left-sided MBO in LMICs.^29,30 Defunctioning loop stoma (loop ileostomy or transverse colostomy) is the fastest, lowest-risk operative option for unresectable obstruction or very frail patients, feasible under regional anaesthesia in 20–40 min.³¹ The Burkina Faso series³² of 639 palliative digestive cancer surgeries demonstrated 76% very satisfactory symptom improvement. MBO recurs in up to 49% of patients within 90 days of surgery.⁵ Stenting is well-nigh impossible.

Table 5.

Surgical procedures for MBO – indication, LMICs feasibility, key operative consideration and expected survival.

Procedure	Ideal indication	Key LMIC consideration	Operative risk	Expected OS/notes
Resection + primary anastomosis	Resectable primary; ECOG 0–1; albumin >30 g/L; single-level; no carcinomatosis	Anastomotic leak risk elevated in malnourished LMIC patient – threshold for protective stoma should be low	Moderate–high	Best oncological outcome if curative; anastomotic leak mortality 40–50% in emergency setting
Hartmann's procedure (end colostomy + rectal stump)	Resectable left-sided primary; adverse local factors for anastomosis; malnutrition	Workhorse LMIC emergency colorectal procedure; stoma reversal rate low in advanced disease; counsel on likely permanent stoma	Moderate	Emergency mortality 15–20%; stoma non-reversal up to 50–60% in advanced malignancy (Yalkın et al., 2022)
Defunctioning loop stoma (colostomy or ileostomy)	Unresectable obstruction; frail patient; palliative intent; rapid decompression needed	Fastest, lowest-risk operative option; suitable for regional anaesthesia; appropriate LMIC default for unresectable MBO	Low	Median OS 162 days; 1-month survival 89%; 3-month survival 65%; transverse colostomy and loop ileostomy equivalent in survival
Entero-enteric bypass (side-to-side anastomosis)	Discrete accessible single-level small bowel obstruction; no carcinomatosis; patient avoids stoma	Uncommonly applicable in LMIC given multi-level carcinomatosis predominance; avoid in diffuse disease	Low–moderate	Median OS 2.7 months in peritoneal carcinomatosis series (Shariat-Madar et al., 2014)
Resection with primary anastomosis + defunctioning ileostomy	Resectable primary with anastomosis risk factors; intermediate nutrition; adequate distal bowel	Technically demanding; reversal requires second operation; avoid in advanced disease where reversal unlikely	Moderate–high	Reduces anastomotic leak risk but adds second procedure for reversal that may never occur
CRS + HIPEC	Select peritoneal carcinomatosis with low PCI; adequate reserve; specialised centre	Not available in LMICs; not appropriate in palliation context; mentioned for completeness	Very high	Not applicable in LMICs context

We propose a resource-stratified clinical algorithm (fig. 2) which accepts diagnostic uncertainty as a constitutive feature of the LMIC clinical encounter and provides a framework for navigating that uncertainty in a structured, evidence-informed manner.

Figure 2.

Clinical algorithm for the diagnostic evaluation and multidisciplinary management of malignant bowel obstruction in advanced malignancy.

Scenario A – Surgically Appropriate Candidate: ECOG 0–2, albumin ≥30 g/L, no clinical ascites, single-level obstruction suggested clinically or radiologically.

Proceed to laparotomy with intent for resection and primary anastomosis where anatomy and nutrition permit, or a diversion stoma where they do not. Median survival 222 days; appropriately selected surgical candidates have a 60–80% chance of achieving durable symptom control.^2,4

Scenario B – Surgical Candidate with Significant Risk Modifiers: ECOG 2–3, albumin 20–29 g/L, limited ascites, suspected but unconfirmed multi-level obstruction.

Initiate a 48-72 h trial of aggressive conservative management with serial reassessment. If obstruction resolves, transition to pharmacological palliation and diet modification. If no resolution, consider limited surgical intervention, defunctioning loop stoma or bypass, rather than definitive resection.

Scenario C – Surgical Futility Threshold Reached: ECOG 3–4, albumin <20 g/L, gross clinical ascites, palpable diffuse abdominal masses, multi-level obstruction confirmed or strongly suspected.

Palliate pharmacologically. Median survival for ECOG 3–4 is 27 days regardless of intervention; peritoneal carcinomatosis itself carries an OR of 5.80 for 90-day death.^4,5

Discussion

First, the epidemiology and aetiology of MBO in LMICs differ substantially from HICs. Second, the diagnostic and therapeutic infrastructure gap constitutes a structurally transformative constraint. Third, no prognostic assessment tool has been validated in LMICs populations.

The strength of this review lies in its explicit focus on clinical applicability and its integration of a broad range of Africa-specific primary evidence.

The limitation is the narrative methodology, which, while appropriate, precludes quantitative meta-analysis and is susceptible to selection bias. The LMIC-specific primary literature on MBO remains sparse; much of the contextual analysis is therefore inferential, and many of the studies cited report on mixed-aetiology intestinal obstruction rather than isolated MBO. The proposed algorithm has not been prospectively validated, and there is wide heterogeneity of existing LMIC health systems.

Prospective multicentre MBO cohort studies in LMICs are needed to document tumour types, stage distribution, nutritional and performance status at presentation, management pathways and 30- and 90-day outcomes. An LMIC-specific MBO prognostic score, derived from and validated against surgical outcomes using universally bedside-assessable variables, is urgently required. Pragmatic pharmacological trials should evaluate the efficacy, feasibility and cost-effectiveness of locally available MBO regimes. Implementation research is needed to determine the best approaches to integrate palliative care into surgical MBO pathways in settings where such specialist services are scarce or non-existent.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Odulusi Daniel

Gamukama Tuhaise

Izimba Daniel

Nek Arthur Jonathan

Mugarura Robert

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alese

Kim

Chen

, et al. Management patterns and predictors of mortality among US patients with cancer hospitalized for malignant bowel obstruction. Cancer 2015; 121: 1772–1778.

Zanatto

Lisboa

Oliveira

, et al. Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology guidelines for malignant bowel obstruction management. J Surg Oncol 2022; 126: 48–56.

Allan

Hatchett

Skene

, et al. Management of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction using the 4-step BOUNCED diet. J Hum Nutr Diet 2024; 38: e13388.

Wright

Chakraborty

Helyer

, et al. Predictors of survival in patients with non-curative stage IV cancer and malignant bowel obstruction. J Surg Oncol 2010; 101: 425–429.

O’Rourke

Naidoo

Piercey

, et al. Bowel obstruction in advanced malignancies: an evaluation of patient outcomes at a tertiary cancer centre. Malignancy Spectrum 2025; 2: 196–203.

Hsu

Prommer

Murphy

, et al. Pharmacologic management of malignant bowel obstruction: when surgery is not an option. J Hosp Med 2019; 14: 367–373.

Krouse

. Malignant bowel obstruction. J Surg Oncol 2019; 120: 74–77.

Banting

Waters

Peacock

, et al. Management of primary and metastatic malignant small bowel obstruction, operate or palliate: a systematic review. ANZ J Surg 2020; 91: 282–290.

Jemal

Bray

Forman

, et al. Cancer burden in Africa and opportunities for prevention. Cancer 2012; 118: 4372–4384.

10.

Lombe

Mwamba

Msadabwe

, et al. Delays in seeking, reaching and access to quality cancer care in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2023; 13: e067018.

11.

Illah

Morhason-Bello

Olaitan

. A review of the global inequalities in the management of gynaecological cancers. Obstet Gynaecol 2024; 27: 29–36.

12.

Miller

Boyce

Box

, et al. The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in emergency colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 2021; 23: 476–547.

13.

Aderibigbe

Dare

Kalvin

, et al. Analysis of risk factors, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes after emergency presentation with colorectal cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study in Nigeria. J Surg Oncol 2024; 131: 170–182.

14.

Fagbemi

Shekoni

Ajao

, et al. Emergency presentation of colorectal cancer in Africa: a scoping review. BMJ Open 2026; 16: e110931.

15.

Anderson

Ndajiwo

Nuhu

, et al. Assessment of capacity to meet Lancet Commission on Global Surgery indicators in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria. World J Surg 2018; 43: 704–714.

16.

Nthumba

Scuderi

. Palliative reconstructive surgery: contextualizing palliation in resource-poor settings. Plast Surg Int 2014; 2014: 275215.

17.

Kolomainen

Riley

Wood

, et al. Surgical management of bowel obstruction in gynaecological cancer. Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 19: 63–70.

18.

Gyedu

Aduome

Apori

, et al. Surgical oncology at a major referral center in Ghana: burden, staging, and outcomes. J Surg Oncol 2018; 118: 581–587.

19.

Irabor

Adedeji

. Colorectal cancer in Nigeria: 40 years on. A review. Eur J Cancer Care 2009; 18: 110–115.

20.

Ndlovu

Kader

Moodley

, et al. A South African central hospital’s experience with malignant colorectal obstruction. S Afr J Surg 2023; 61: 47–51.

21.

Gao

Tang

, et al. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided coloenterostomy with a lumen-opposing metal stent for malignant small bowel obstruction. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2025; 40: 2518–2525.

22.

Gajendran

Umapathy

Nasr

, et al. Clinical outcomes of colonic stent in a tertiary care center. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2014; 2014: 138724.

23.

Jiang

Hao

, et al. Etiologic spectrum of intestinal obstruction in Ningxia District: a retrospective analysis of 4908 cases. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2019; 2019: 4935947.

24.

Spencer

Adler

. Utility of portable ultrasound in a community in Ghana. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27: 1735–1743.

25.

Antoun

Rey

Beal

, et al.

Nutritional risk factors in planned oncologic surgery: what clinical and biological parameters should be routinely used?

World J Surg 2009; 33: 1633–1640.

26.

La Torre

Ziparo

Nigri

, et al. Malnutrition and pancreatic surgery: prevalence and outcomes. J Surg Oncol 2013; 107: 702–708.

27.

Chicago Consensus Working Group. The Chicago consensus on peritoneal surface malignancies: management of bowel obstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 27: 1789–1796.

28.

Pálsdóttir

Salehi

Johansson

, et al. Incidence of and survival after surgical intervention for bowel obstruction in women with advanced ovarian cancer. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2023; 102: 1653–1660.

29.

Kisilu

. Surgical outcomes of mechanical intestinal obstruction due to neoplasms at Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital, Eldoret, Kenya [master’s thesis]. Moi University, 2024. http://ir.mu.ac.ke:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/9311.

30.

Yalkin

Kozan

Akyol

, et al. Factors affecting Hartmann's reversal rates. Colorectal Dis 2022; 24: 281–288.

31.

Ando

Oshiro

Enomoto

, et al. Japanese Multicenter analysis of stoma construction for malignant large bowel obstruction. Surg Today 2021; 51: 1286–1294.

32.

Zongo

Yameogo

Zongo

, et al. The outcomes of palliative surgical treatment in a context of rising incidence of gastro intestinal cancers in Burkina Faso, Africa. Eur J Surg Oncol 2022; 48: 2174–2180.