Treatment of Hinchey stage III-IV diverticulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy vs. Hartmann's procedure for acute diverticulitis: what happens after discharge? Results of a nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend resection with primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy over Hartmann's procedure if deemed safe for acute diverticulitis. The primary objective of the current study was to compare the utilization of these strategies and describe nationwide ostomy closure patterns and readmission outcomes within 1 year of discharge.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, population-based, cohort study of United States Hospitals reporting to the Nationwide Readmissions Database from January 2011 to December 2019. There were 35,774 patients identified undergoing non-elective primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy or Hartmann's procedure for acute diverticulitis. Rates of ostomy closure, unplanned readmissions, and complications were compared. Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models were used to control for patient and hospital-level confounders as well as severity of disease.

RESULTS

Of the 35,774 patients identified, 93.5% underwent Hartmann's procedure. Half (47.2%) were aged 46-65 years, 50.8% female, 41.2% publicly insured, and 91.7% underwent open surgery. Primary anastomosis was associated with higher rates of 1-year ostomy closure (83.6% vs. 53.4%, p < 0.001) and shorter time-to-closure [median 72 days (Interquartile range 49-103) vs. 115 (86-160); p < 0.001]. Primary anastomosis was associated with increased unplanned readmissions [Hazard Ratio = 2.83 (95% Confidence Interval 2.83-3.37); p < 0.001], but fewer complications upon stoma closure [Odds Ratio 0.51 (95% 0.42-0.63); p < 0.001]. There were no differences in complications between primary anastomosis and Hartmann's procedure during index admission [Odds Ratio = 1.13 (95% Confidence Interval 0.96-1.33); p = 0.137].

CONCLUSION

Patients who undergo primary anastomosis for acute diverticulitis are more likely to undergo ostomy reversal and experience fewer postoperative complications upon stoma reversal. These data support the current national guidelines that recommend primary anastomosis in appropriate cases of acute diverticulitis requiring operative treatment.

Goodbye Hartmann trial: a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study on the current use of a surgical procedure developed a century ago

BACKGROUND

Literature suggests colonic resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) instead of Hartmann's procedure (HP) for the treatment of left-sided colonic emergencies. We aim to evaluate the surgical options globally used to treat patients with acute left-sided colonic emergencies and the factors that leading to the choice of treatment, comparing HP and RPA.

METHODS

This is a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total 1215 patients with left-sided colonic emergencies who required surgery were included from 204 centers during the period of March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. with a 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

564 patients (43.1%) were females. The mean age was 65.9 ± 15.6 years. HP was performed in 697 (57.3%) patients and RPA in 384 (31.6%) cases. Complicated acute diverticulitis was the most common cause of left-sided colonic emergencies (40.2%), followed by colorectal malignancy (36.6%). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were higher in the HP group (P < 0.001). 30-day mortality was higher in HP patients (13.7%), especially in case of bowel perforation and diffused peritonitis. 1-year follow-up showed no differences on ostomy reversal rate between HP and RPA. (P = 0.127). A backward likelihood logistic regression model showed that RPA was preferred in younger patients, having low ASA score (≤ 3), in case of large bowel obstruction, absence of colonic ischemia, longer time from admission to surgery, operating early at the day working hours, by a surgeon who performed more than 50 colorectal resections.

CONCLUSIONS

After 100 years since the first Hartmann's procedure, HP remains the most common treatment for left-sided colorectal emergencies. Treatment's choice depends on patient characteristics, the time of surgery and the experience of the surgeon. RPA should be considered as the gold standard for surgery, with HP being an exception.

Diverticulitis, surgery, evidence-based medicine, and the Steve Jobs' dots: a narrative review

PURPOSE

Emergency treatment of acute diverticulitis remains a hazy field. Despite a number of clinical studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), guidelines and surgical societies recommendations, the most critical hot topics have yet to be addressed.

METHODS

Literature research from 1963 until today was performed. Data regarding the principal RCTs and observational studies were summarized in descriptive tables. In particular we aimed to focus on the following topics: the role of laparoscopy, the acute care setting, the RCTs, guidelines, observational studies and classifications proposed by literature, the problem in case of a pandemic, and the importance of adapting treatment /place/surgeon conditions.

RESULTS

In the evaluation of these points we did not try to find any prospective evolution of the concepts achievements. On the contrary we simply report the individuals strands of research from a retrospective point of view, similarly to what Steve Jobes said: "you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future". We have finally obtained what can be defined "a narrative review of the literature on diverticulitis".

CONCLUSIONS

Not only evidence-based medicine but also the contextualization, as also the role of 'competent' surgeons, should guide to novel approach in acute diverticulitis management.

Patient outcomes and prognostic factors associated with colonic perforation surgery: a retrospective study

Background

Despite advances in surgery and intensive perioperative care, fecal peritonitis secondary to colonic perforation is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. This study was performed to review the outcomes of patients who underwent colonic perforation surgery and to evaluate the prognostic factors associated with mortality.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on 224 consecutive patients who underwent emergency colonic perforation surgery between January 2008 and May 2019. We divided the patients into survivor and non-survivor groups and compared their surgical outcomes.

Results

The most common cause of colon perforation was malignancy in 54 patients (24.1%), followed by iatrogenic perforation in 41 (18.3%), stercoral perforation in 39 (17.4%), and diverticulitis in 37 (16.5%). The sigmoid colon (n=124, 55.4%) was the most common location of perforation, followed by the ascending colon, rectum, and cecum. Forty-five patients (20.1%) died within 1 month after surgery. Comparing the 179 survivors with the 45 non-survivors, the patient characteristics associated with mortality were advanced age, low systolic blood pressure, tachycardia, organ failure, high C-reactive protein, high creatinine, prolonged prothrombin time, and high lactate level. The presence of free or feculent fluid, diffuse peritonitis, and right-sided perforation were associated with mortality. In multivariate analysis, advanced age, organ failure, right-sided perforation, and diffuse peritonitis independently predicted mortality within 1 month after surgery.

Conclusion

Age and organ failure were prognostic factors for mortality associated with colon perforation. Furthermore, right-sided perforation and diffuse peritonitis demonstrated a significant association with patient mortality.

WSES/GAIS/SIS-E/WSIS/AAST global clinical pathways for patients with intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and have been reported as major contributors to non-trauma deaths in hospitals worldwide. The cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs include early recognition, adequate source control, appropriate antimicrobial therapy, and prompt physiologic stabilization using a critical care environment, combined with an optimal surgical approach. Together, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery (GAIS), the Surgical Infection Society-Europe (SIS-E), the World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS), and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) have jointly completed an international multi-society document in order to facilitate clinical management of patients with IAIs worldwide building evidence-based clinical pathways for the most common IAIs. An extensive non-systematic review was conducted using the PubMed and MEDLINE databases, limited to the English language. The resulting information was shared by an international task force from 46 countries with different clinical backgrounds. The aim of the document is to promote global standards of care in IAIs providing guidance to clinicians by describing reasonable approaches to the management of IAIs.

Perioperative clinical parameters associated with short-term mortality after colorectal perforation

Purpose

Although early prediction of mortality is useful for the management of patients with colorectal perforations, no significant perioperative predictive factors have been identified. The purpose of this study was to identify useful prognostic factors for patients with colorectal perforation.

Methods

This single-center retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing emergency surgery for colorectal perforation from January 2012 to December 2019. The primary outcome was combined 30 day and in-hospital mortality. Patient- and disease-related factors obtained perioperatively were evaluated for mortality prediction. A scoring system was developed to enhance clinical utility.

Results

Overall, 146 patients were included and 20 (14%) died after surgery. Multivariate logistic regression identified five predictive factors: age, hemodialysis, uncommon perforation etiology, plasma albumin level, and decreased platelet count. The area under the receiver operating curve for the scoring system using these parameters was 0.894 (95% CI 0.835–0.952). Patients at high-risk of mortality were classified by the proposed score with a sensitivity of 90.0% and negative predictive value of 98.0%.

Conclusion

This study identified five perioperative factors significantly associated with mortality of patients with colorectal perforation. Although these parameters predict mortality of patients with colorectal perforation using a score with high discrimination, further study is required to confirm these findings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00068-021-01719-8.

Socioeconomic disparities in ostomy reversal among older adults with diverticulitis are more substantial among non-Hispanic Black patients

BACKGROUND

While ostomies for diverticulitis are often intended to be temporary, ostomy reversal rates can be as low as 46%. There are few comprehensive studies evaluating the effects of socioeconomic status as a disparity in ostomy reversal. We hypothesized that among the elderly Medicare population undergoing partial colectomy for diverticulitis, lower socioeconomic status would be associated with reduced reversal rates.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using a 20% representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries >65 years old with diverticulitis who received ostomies between January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017. We evaluated the effect of neighborhood socioeconomic status, measured by the Social Deprivation Index, on ostomy reversal within 1 year. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 10,572 patients, ostomy reversals ranged from 21.2% (low socioeconomic status) to 29.8% (highest socioeconomic status), with a shorter time to reversal among higher socioeconomic status groups. Patients with low socioeconomic status were less likely to have their ostomies reversed, compared with the highest socioeconomic status group (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.74-0.93) and were more likely to die (hazard ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.33). When stratified by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status, non-Hispanic White patients at every socioeconomic status had a higher reversal rate than non-Hispanic Black patients (White patients 32.0%-24.8% vs Black patients 19.6%-14.7%). Socioeconomic status appeared to have a higher relative impact among non-Hispanic Black patients.

CONCLUSION

Among Medicare diverticulitis patients, ostomy reversal rates are low. Patients with lower socioeconomic status are less likely to undergo stoma reversal and are more likely to die; Black patients are least likely to have an ostomy reversal.

Short- and long-term outcomes for primary anastomosis versus Hartmann's procedure in Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis: a multivariate logistic regression analysis of risk factors

Purpose

The management of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis is still controversial and no preferred standardized therapeutic approach has been determined. We compared surgical outcomes between Hartmann’s procedure (HP) and primary anastomosis (PA) in patients with Hinchey III and IV perforated diverticulitis.

Methods

Multicenter retrospective analysis of 131 consecutive patients with Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis operated either with HP or PA from 2015 to 2018. Postoperative morbidity was compared after adjustment for known risk factors in a multivariate logistic regression.

Results

Sixty-six patients underwent HP, while PA was carried out in 65 patients, 35.8% of those were defunctioned. HP was more performed in older patients (74.6 vs. 61.2 years, p < .001), with Hinchey IV diverticulitis (37% vs. 7%, p < .001) and in patients with worse prognostic scores (P-POSSUM Physiology Score, p < .001, Charlson Comorbidity Index p < .001). Major morbidity and mortality were higher in HP compared to PA (30.3% vs. 9.2%, p = .002 and 10.6% vs. 0%, p = .007, respectively) with lower stoma reversal rate (43.9% vs. 86.9%, p < .001). In a multivariate logistic regression, PA was independently associated with lower postoperative morbidity and mortality (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06–0.96, p = .044).

Conclusions

In comparison to PA, HP is associated with a higher morbidity, higher mortality, and a lower stoma reversal rate. Although a higher prevalence of risk factors in HP patients may explain these outcomes, a significant increase in morbidity and mortality persisted in a multivariate logistic regression analysis that was stratified for the identified risk factors.

Primary anastomosis and nonrestorative resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIM

The aim of this meta-analysis was to comparatively evaluate the outcomes of primary anastomosis (PRA) and nonrestorative resection (NRR) as emergency surgery and ostomy reversal in patients with perforated diverticulitis and peritonitis.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Postoperative morbidity following emergency resection was the primary end-point. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Cochrane Quality Assessment Tool including recruitment bias and crossover with intention-to-treat analysis. The Haenszel-Mantel method with odds ratios (OR, 95% CI) and the inverse variance method with mean difference (MD, 95% CI) as effect measures were utilized for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials totaling 382 patients (180 PRA vs 204 NRR) were included. Morbidity rates following emergency resection did not differ (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.65, 1.51; P = 0.95; number needed to treat/harm (NNT) 96). Organ/space surgical site infection rates were 3.3% in PRA vs 11.3% in NRR (OR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.12, 0.74; P = 0.009; NNT = 13). Postoperative morbidity rates following ostomy reversal were significantly lower in PRA (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.15, 0.64; P = 0.001; NNT = 7). Pooled ostomy non-reversal rates were 16% in PRA vs 35.5% in NRR (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.22, 0.62; P = 0.0001; NNT = 6) with high heterogeneity (I²  = 63%; τ²  = 8.17). Meta-regression analysis revealed significant negative correlation between the PRA-to-NRR crossover rate and the ostomy non-reversal rate (P = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis found that PRA was associated with better short- and long-term outcomes at the cost of significantly longer operating time at emergency surgery.

Prospectively Randomized Controlled Trial on Damage Control Surgery for Perforated Diverticulitis with Generalized Peritonitis

Introduction

Damage control surgery (DCS) with abdominal negative pressure therapy and delayed anastomosis creation in patients with perforated diverticulitis and generalized peritonitis was established at our Institution in 2006 and has been published. The concept was adopted in other hospitals and published as a case series. This is the first prospectively controlled randomized study comparing DCS and conventional treatment (Group C) in this setting.

Methods

All consecutive patients from 2013 to 2018 with indication for surgery were screened and randomized to Group DCS or Group C. The primary outcome was the rate of reconstructed bowel at discharge and at 6 month. Informed consent was obtained. The trial was approved by the local ethics committee and registered at CinicalTrials.gov: NCT04034407.

Results

A total of 56 patients were screened; 41 patients gave informed consent to participate and ultimately 21 patients (9 female) with intraoperatively confirmed Hinchey III (n = 14, 67%) or IV (n = 7, 33%), and a median (range) age of 66 (42–92), Mannheim Peritonitis Index of 25 (12–37) and Charlson Comorbidity Index of 3 (0–10) were intraoperatively randomized and treated as Group DCS (n = 13) or Group C (n = 8). Per protocol analysis: A primary anastomosis without ileostomy (PA) was performed in 92% (11/12) patients in Group DCS at the second-look operation, one patient died before second look, and one underwent a Hartmann procedure (HP). In Group C 63% (5/8) patients received a PA and 38% (3/8) patients a HP. Two patients in Group C, but none in Group DCS experienced anastomotic leakage (AI). ICU and hospital stay was median (range) 2 (1–10) and 17.5 (12–43) in DCS and 2 (1–62) and 22 (13–65) days in group C. In Group DCS 8% (1/12) patients was discharged with a stoma versus 57% (4/7) in Group C (p = 0.038, n.s., α = 0.025); one patient died before discharge. The odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for discharge with a stoma is 0.068 (0.005–0.861). Intent to treat analysis: A PA was performed in 90% (9/10) of patients randomized to DCS, one patient died before the second look, and one patient received a HP. In group C, 70% (7/10) were treated with PA and 30% (3/10) with HP. 29% (2/7) experienced AI treated with protective ileostomy. In group DCS, 9% (1/11) were discharged with a stoma versus 40% (4/10) in group C (p = 0.14, n.s.). The odds ratio for discharge with a stoma is 0.139 (0.012–1.608).

Conclusion

This is the first prospectively randomized controlled study showing that damage control surgery in perforated diverticulitis Hinchey III and IV enhances reconstruction of bowel continuity and can reduce the stoma rate at discharge.

Prognostic Factors and Management for Left Colonic Perforation: Can Hartmann's Procedure Be Preventable?

PURPOSE

To identify factors significantly associated with the mortality of patients with left colonic perforation, and to compare the outcome of Hartmann's procedure (HP) and primary repair (PR) or primary anastomosis (PA) in patients with left colonic perforation without factors associated with mortality.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent surgery for left colonic perforation from January 2009 to February 2018. Preoperative factors related to postoperative mortality, including vital signs, laboratory findings, and intraoperative findings, were analyzed by type of operation. The chi-square, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients were included (36 men, 55 women), and 15 (16.5%) died postoperatively. Prognostic factors were age, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, bleeding tendency, acute kidney injury, hemodynamic instability, and the existence of feculent ascites. Leukopenia and longer operative time were independent risk factors for mortality. Seventy-nine patients did not have leukopenia and 30 of these patients who underwent PR without diversion were excluded from the subanalysis. HP was performed in 30 patients, and PR with diversion and PA with or without diversion were performed in 19. Compared to the other operative methods, HP had no advantage in reducing hospital mortality (P=0.458) and morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Leukopenia could be an objective prognostic factor for left colonic perforation. Although HP is the gold standard for septic left colonic perforation, it did not improve the hospital mortality of the patients without leukopenia. For such patients, PR or PA may be suggested as an alternative option for left colonic perforation.

Acute diverticulitis: old challenge, current trends, open questions

Acute diverticulitis (AD) is an increasing issue for health systems worldwide. As accuracy of clinical symptoms and laboratory examinations is poor, a pivotal role in preoperative diagnosis and severity assessment is played by CT scan. Several new classifications trying to adapt the intraoperative Hinchey's classification to preoperative CT findings have been proposed, but none really entered clinical practice. Treatment of early AD is mostly conservative (antibiotics) and may be administered in outpatients in selected cases. Larger abscesses (exceeding 3 to 5 cm) need percutaneous drainage, while management of stages 3 (purulent peritonitis) and 4 (fecal peritonitis) is difficult to standardize, as various approaches are nowadays suggested. Three situations are identified: situation A, stage 3 in stable/healthy patients, where various options are available, including conservative management, lavage/drainage and primary resection/anastomosis w/without protective stoma; situation B, stage 3 in unstable and/or unhealthy patients, and stage 4 in stable/healthy patients, where stoma-protected primary resection/anastomosis or Hartmann procedure should be performed; situation C, stage 4 in unstable and/or unhealthy patients, where Hartmann procedure or damage control surgery (resection without any anastomosis/stoma) are suggested. Late, elective sigmoid resection is less and less performed, as a new trend towards a patient-tailored management is spreading.

2020 update of the WSES guidelines for the management of acute colonic diverticulitis in the emergency setting

Acute colonic diverticulitis is one of the most common clinical conditions encountered by surgeons in the acute setting. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts from the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) updated its guidelines for management of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis (ALCD) according to the most recent available literature. The update includes recent changes introduced in the management of ALCD. The new update has been further integrated with advances in acute right-sided colonic diverticulitis (ARCD) that is more common than ALCD in select regions of the world.

Emergency Surgery in Acute Diverticulitis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Acute diverticulitis is a common disease with public health significance. Many studies with a high level of evidence have been published recently on the surgical management of acute diverticulitis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to define the accurate surgical management of acute diverticulitis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were sources used.

STUDY SELECTION

One reviewer conducted a systematic study with combinations of key words for the disease and the surgical procedure. Additional studies were searched in the reference lists of all included articles. The results of the systematic review were submitted to a working group composed of 13 practitioners. All of the conclusions were obtained by full consensus and validated by an external committee.

INTERVENTIONS

The interventions assessed were laparoscopic peritoneal lavage, primary resection with anastomosis with or without ileostomy, and the Hartmann procedure, with either a laparoscopic or an open approach.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Morbidity, mortality, long-term stoma rates, and quality of life were measured.

RESULTS

Seventy-one articles were included. Five guidelines were retrieved, along with 4 meta-analyses, 14 systematic reviews, and 5 randomized controlled trials that generated 8 publications, all with a low risk of bias, except for blinding. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage showed concerning results of deep abscesses and unplanned reoperations. Studies on Hinchey III/IV diverticulitis showed similar morbidity and mortality. A reduced length of stay with Hartmann procedure compared with primary resection with anastomosis was reported in the short term, and in the long term, more definite stoma along with poorer quality of life was reported with Hartmann procedure. No high-quality data were found to support the laparoscopic approach.

LIMITATIONS

Trials specifically assessing Hinchey IV diverticulitis have not yet been completed.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality studies showed that laparoscopic peritoneal lavage was associated with an increased morbidity and that Hartmann procedure was associated with poorer long-term outcomes than primary resection with anastomosis with ileostomy, but Hartmann procedure is still acceptable, especially in high-risk patients.

Surgical treatment of acute complicated diverticulitis in the elderly

Although the true prevalence is unknown, colonic diverticulosis is one of the most common disease of the digestive tract in Western countries. Based on administrative data of hospitalized patients, the incidence of diverticulitis has been increasing in last decades. In general, elderly patients undergo less frequently an elective colonic resection; but a substantial part of emergency surgeries is performed in elderly patients. In these older patients the choice of any clinical and surgical option is to be correlated not only to the severity of diverticulitis, but also to general status and the co-existing comorbidities. In this regard, it is mandatory that all patients undergo a multidimensional, comprehensive geriatric assessment to correctly identify those who are fit, vulnerable or frail. The analysis of data currently available highlights three relevant elements: type and severity of peritoneal contamination, hemodynamic conditions (stable or unstable), and concomitant comorbidities (fit or frail status). There is no single ideal surgical treatment that can be considered as gold standard for all clinical presentations; the final clinical decision-making should always be based on patient's general health status, severity of peritonitis and of sepsis. In a septic elderly patient who is hemodynamically unstable, treatment should be as prompt as possible independent of the Hinchey's stage, and could include either a Mickulicz stoma or a DCS strategy. In an elderly patient who is fit and hemodynamically stable, the surgical options are similar to those in a younger patient. If a patient is frail but hemodynamically stable, he should be treated with a Hartmann's procedures.

Association of Timing of Colostomy Reversal With Outcomes Following Hartmann Procedure for Diverticulitis

Importance

The Hartmann procedure (end colostomy) remains a common operation for diverticulitis requiring surgery. However, the timing of subsequent colostomy reversal remains widely varied, and the optimal timing remains unknown.

Objective

To investigate the association of the timing of colostomy reversal with operative outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective analysis of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases for California, Florida and Maryland included patients with colostomy for diverticulitis linked to their colostomy reversal. Patients with readmissions between the index surgery and reversal were excluded, leaving a final cohort of 1660 patients. Data were collected from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2016, and analyzed from December 1, 2017, through May 31, 2018.

Exposures

Patients were divided based on timing of colostomy reversal following the index surgery into early (45-110 days), middle (111-169 days), and late (≥170 days) reversal timing.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes of interest after reversal included mortality, morbidity, and readmissions and were compared among all groups using logistic regression adjusted for comorbidities and age.

Results

In total, 7165 patients with at least 1 year of follow-up were identified, and 2028 (28.3%) underwent reversal within 1 year. Of patients who underwent reversal within 1 year, 1660 had no readmissions before reversal (860 men [51.8%]; median age, 61 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 51-70 years]). The median time to reversal was 129 days (IQR, 99-182 days). On multivariable analysis, patient characteristics associated with early reversal included being 60 years or younger (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00-1.70; P = .0497), white race (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05-1.67; P = .02), and private insurance vs Medicaid (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.67-3.60; P < .001). Mortality, transfusion, ileus, and major complications were not significantly different among the reversal timing groups. However, prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.19-2.21; P = .002) and 90-day readmissions (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.18-2.22; P = .003) were significantly more likely in the late vs early timing groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

Less than one-third of patients undergo colostomy reversal within 1 year after end colostomy for diverticulitis, and reversal timing is associated with socioeconomic disparities. In selected patients with an uncomplicated course, improved outcomes are associated with earlier reversal, and colostomy reversal is safe as early as 45 to 110 days after the initial procedure.

Primary resection anastomosis versus Hartmann's procedure in Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis

Introduction

Surgical management of Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis utilizes either Hartmann’s procedure (HP) or primary resection anastomosis (PRA) with or without fecal diversion. The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine which of the two procedures has a more favorable outcome.

Methods

A systematic review of the existing literature was performed using the PRISMA guidelines. A meta-analysis was carried out using a Mantel-Haenszel, random effects model, and forest plots were generated. The Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scoring tools were used to assess the included studies.

Results

A total of 25 studies involving 3546 patients were included in this study. The overall mortality in the HP group was 10.8% across the observational studies and 9.4% in the randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The mortality rate in the PRA group was lower than that in the HP group, at 8.2% in the observational studies and 4.3% in the RCTs. A comparison of PRA vs HP demonstrated a 40% lower mortality rate in the PRA group than in the HP (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38–0.95, p = 0.03) when analyzing the observational studies. However, meta-analysis of the three RCTs did not demonstrate any difference in mortality, (OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.14–1.34, p = 0.15). Wound infection rates between the two groups were comparable (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.20–2.78, p = 0.67).

Conclusion

Analysis of observational studies suggests that PRA may be associated with a lower overall mortality. There were no differences in wound infection rates. Based on the current evidence, both surgical strategies appear to be acceptable.

Damage control surgery for perforated diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis: saves lives and reduces ostomy

Introduction

Over the last decade, damage control surgery (DCS) has been emerging as a feasible alternative for the management of patients with abdominal infection and sepsis. So far, there is no consensus about the role of DCS for acute perforated diverticulitis. In this study, we present the outcome of a multi-institutional series of patients presenting with Hinchey's grade III and IV diverticulitis managed by DCS.

Methods

All the participating centers were tertiary referral hospitals. A total of 34 patients with perforated diverticulitis treated with DCS during the period 2011–2017 were included in the study. During the first laparotomy, a limited resection of the diseased segment was performed followed by lavage and use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). After 24/48 h of resuscitation, patients returned to the operating room for a second look. Mortality, morbidity, and restoration of bowel continuity were the primary outcomes of the study.

Results

There were 15 males (44%) and 19 females (56%) with a mean age of 66.9 years (SD ± 12.7). Mean BMI was 28.42 kg/m² (SD ± 3.33). Thirteen cases (38%) were Wasvary’s modified Hinchey's stage III, and 21 cases (62%) Hinchey's stage IV. Mean Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI) was 25.12 (SD ± 6.28). In 22 patients (65%), ASA score was ≥ grade III. Twenty-four patients (71%) had restoration of bowel continuity, while 10 (29%) patients had an end colostomy (Hartmann’s procedure). Three of these patients received a temporary loop ileostomy. One patient had an anastomotic leak. Mortality rate was 12%. Mean length of hospital stay was 21.9 days. At multivariate analysis, male gender (p = 0.010) and MPI (p = 0.034) correlated with a high percentage of Hartmann’s procedures.

Conclusion

DCS is a feasible procedure for patients with generalized peritonitis secondary to perforated diverticulitis, and it appears to be related to a higher rate of bowel reconstruction. Due to the open abdomen, stay in ICU with prolonged mechanical ventilation is required, but these aggressive measures may be needed by most patients undergoing surgery for perforated diverticulitis, whatever the procedure is done.

Perforated Diverticulitis with Generalized Peritonitis: Low Stoma Rate Using a "Damage Control Strategy"

PURPOSE

Optimal surgical management of perforated diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon has yet to be clearly defined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate efficacy of a "Damage Control Strategy" (DCS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with perforated diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon complicated by generalized peritonitis (Hinchey III and IV) surgically treated according to a damage control strategy between May 2011 and February 2017 were enrolled in the present multicenter retrospective cohort study. Data were collected at three surgical centers. DCS comprises a two-stage concept: [1] limited resection of the perforated colon segment with oral and aboral blind closure during the emergency procedure and [2] definitive reconstruction at scheduled second laparotomy (anastomosis ∓ loop ileostomy or a Hartmann's procedure) after 24-48 h.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were included into the analysis [W:M 28:30, median age 70.1 years (30-92)]. Eleven patients (19%) initially presented with fecal peritonitis (Hinchey IV) and 47 patients with purulent peritonitis (Hinchey III). An anastomosis could be created during the second procedure in 48 patients (83%), 14 of those received an additional loop ileostomy. In the remaining ten patients (n = 17%), an end colostomy was created at second laparotomy. A fecal diversion was performed in five patients to treat anastomotic complications. Thus, altogether, 29 patients (50%) had stoma at the end of the hospital stay. The postoperative mortality was 9% (n = 5), and median postoperative hospital stay was 18.5 days (3-66). At the end of the follow-up, 44 of 53 surviving patients were stoma free (83%).

CONCLUSION

The use of the Damage Control strategy leads to a comparatively low stoma rate in patients suffering from perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis.

Abdominal Sepsis: An Update

Despite the significant development and advancement in antibiotic therapy, life-threatening complication of infective diseases cause hundreds of thousands of deaths world. This paper updates some of the issues regarding the etiology and treatment of abdominal sepsis and summaries the latest guidelines as recommended by the Intra-abdominal Infection (IAI) Consensus (2017). Prognostic scores are currently used to assess the course of peritonitis. Irrespective of the initial cause, there are several measures universally accepted as contributing to an improved survival rate, with the early recognition of IAI being the critical matter in this respect. Immediate correction of fluid balance should be undertaken with the use of vasoactive agents being prescribed, if necessary, to augment and assist fluid resuscitation. The WISS study showed that mortality was significantly affected by sepsis irrespective of any medical and surgical measures. A significant issue is the prevalence of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae in the clinical setting, and the reported prevalence of ESBLs intra-abdominal infections has steadily increased in Asia. Europe, Latin America, Middle East, North America, and South Pacific. Abdominal cavity pathology is second only to sepsis occurring in a pulmonary site. Following IAI (2017) guidelines, antibiotic therapy should be initiated as soon as possible after a diagnosis has been verified.

Resection with primary anastomosis vs nonrestorative resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

It is still controversial whether the optimal operation for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis is primary anastomosis (PRA) or nonrestorative resection (NRR). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate mortality and morbidity rates following emergency resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis and ostomy reversal, as well as ostomy nonreversal rates.

METHOD

The Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, CINAHL and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Mortality was the primary end-point. A subgroup meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed in addition to a meta-analysis of all eligible studies. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean difference (MD) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), involving 1016 patients (392 PRA vs 624 NRR) were included. Overall, mortality was significantly lower in patients with PRA compared with patients with NRR [OR (95% CI) = 0.38 (0.24, 0.60), P < 0.0001]. Organ/space surgical site infection (SSI) [OR (95% CI) = 0.25 (0.10, 0.63), P = 0.003], reoperation [OR (95% CI) = 0.48 (0.25, 0.91), P = 0.02] and ostomy nonreversal rates [OR (95% CI) = 0.27 (0.09, 0.84), P = 0.02] were significantly decreased in PRA. In the RCTs, the mortality rate did not differ [OR (95% CI) = 0.46 (0.15, 1.38), P = 0.17]. The mean operating time for PRA was significantly longer than for NRR [MD (95% CI) = 19.96 (7.40, 32.52), P = 0.002]. Organ/space SSI [OR (95% CI) = 0.28 (0.09, 0.82), P = 0.02] was lower after PRA. Ostomy nonreversal rates were lower after PRA. The difference was not statistically significant [OR (95% CI) = 0.26 (0.06, 1.11), P = 0.07]. However, it was clinically significant [number needed to treat/harm (95% CI) = 5 (3.1, 8.9)].

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis found that organ/space SSI rates as well as ostomy nonreversal rates were decreased in PRA at the cost of prolonging the operating time.

Mortality and Morbidity After Hartmann's Procedure Versus Primary Anastomosis Without a Diverting Stoma for Colorectal Perforation: A Nationwide Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The benefit of primary anastomosis (PA) without a diverting stoma over Hartmann's procedure (HP) for colorectal perforation remains controversial. We compared postoperative mortality and morbidity between HP and PA without a diverting stoma for colorectal perforation of various etiologies.

METHODS

Using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, we extracted data on patients who underwent emergency open laparotomy for colorectal perforation of various etiologies from July 1, 2010 to March 31, 2014. We compared 30-day mortality, postoperative complication rates, and postoperative critical care interventions between HP and PA groups using propensity score matching, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and instrumental variable analyses to adjust for measured and unmeasured confounding factors.

RESULTS

We identified 8500 eligible patients (5455 HP and 3045 PA). In the propensity score-matched model, a significant difference between the HP and PA groups was detected in 30-day mortality (7.7% vs. 9.6%; risk difference, 1.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-3.4). The inverse probability of treatment weighting showed similar results (8.8% vs. 10.7%; risk difference, 1.9%; 95% CI, 1.0-2.8). In the instrumental variable analysis, the point estimate suggested similar direction to that of the propensity score analyses (risk difference, 4.4%; 95% CI, -3.3 to 12.1). The PA group had significantly higher rates of secondary surgery for complications (4.6% vs. 8.4%; risk difference, 3.8%; 95% CI, 2.5-4.1) and slightly longer duration of postoperative critical care interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed a significant difference in 30-day mortality between HP and PA without a diverting stoma.

Perforated sigmoid diverticulitis: Hartmann's procedure or resection with primary anastomosis-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials

INTRODUCTION

The surgical management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis and generalised peritonitis is challenging. Surgical resection is the established standard of care. However, there is debate as to whether a primary anastomosis (PA) or a Hartmann's procedure (HP) should be performed. The aim of the present study was to perform a review of the literature comparing HP to PA for the treatment of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis with generalised peritonitis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed for articles published up to March 2018. We considered only randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of sigmoidectomy with PA versus HP in adults with perforated sigmoid diverticulitis and generalised peritonitis (Hinchey III or IV). Primary outcomes were mortality and permanent stoma rate. Outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model to estimate the risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Of the 1,204 potentially relevant articles, 3 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis with 254 patients in total (116 and 138 in the PA and HP groups, respectively). All three RCTs had significant limitations including small size, lack of blinding and possible selection bias. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality or overall morbidity. Although 2 out of the 3 trials reported a lower permanent stoma rate in the PA arm, the difference in permanent stoma rates was not statistically significant (RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.14-1.16). The incidence of anastomotic leaks, including leaks after stoma reversal, was not statistically different between PA and HP (RR = 1.42, 95% CI 0.41-4.87, p = 0.58) while risk of a postoperative intra-abdominal abscess was lower after PA than after HP (RR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.12-0.96, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

PA and HP appear to be equivalent in terms of most outcomes of interest, except for a lower intra-abdominal abscess risk after PA. The latter finding needs further investigation as it was not reported in any of the individual trials. However, given the limitations of the included RCTs, no firm conclusion can be drawn on which is the best surgical option in patients with generalised peritonitis due to diverticular perforation.

Current Options for the Emergency Management of Diverticular Disease and Options to Reduce the Need for Colostomy

This article reviews the current options and recommendations for the emergency management of acute diverticulitis, including the spectrum of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage, laparoscopic lavage, and surgical options for resection with the restoration of bowel continuity.

The Multidisciplinary Management of Acute Complicated Diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

Acute complicated diverticulitis (ACD) is an important and increasing issue in Western countries that leads to a significant impact and burden for patients, but also for the society due to its effects on hospital costs. In recent years, essential progression has been made regarding the research and implementation of novel or improved treatment strategies for the various disease entities of ACD. Much debated topics in the multidisciplinary approach of patients with ACD, such as the choice for nonoperative treatment options, the role of percutaneous drainage for diverticular abscesses, the role of laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis, and the role of sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for patients with perforated diverticulitis, require clinicians to attentively follow and participate in these discussions.

SUMMARY

The aim of this review article is to provide clinicians with a structured overview of the recent literature on the multidisciplinary management of complicated diverticulitis by a panel of experts on the topic. By performing an extensive literature search in the online medical databases MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase, insights into nonoperative treatment, percutaneous drainage, minimally invasive and open surgical treatment of ACD are provided. Furthermore, a comprehensive algorithm for the treatment of ACD has been developed.

KEY MESSAGES

Accurate patient evaluation and selection based on patient and disease characteristics is of paramount importance to determine the appropriate treatment strategy for patients with complicated diverticulitis. The presence of an experienced surgeon with advanced skills in laparoscopic emergency colorectal surgery is crucial for the treatment of patients with perforated diverticulitis in order to properly evaluate, select and treat patients suitable for nonoperative or operative treatment with an open or laparoscopic approach.

An Update on the Current Management of Perforated Diverticulitis

The management of perforated diverticulitis is a challenging aspect of general surgery. The prevalence of colonic diverticular disease has increased over the last decade and will continue to increase as the baby boomers add to the elderly population. Improvements in diagnostic imaging modalities, efforts to maintain intestinal continuity, and percutaneous drainage procedures now result in several alternatives when selecting a management strategy for complicated presentations. Specifically, laparoscopic lavage and resection with primary anastomosis have emerged as options for treatment of Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis in place of diversion in the appropriately selected patient. Percutaneous drainage of Hinchey II diverticulitis in centers equipped with interventional radiology provides another minimally invasive adjunct. The objective of this paper is to provide an update on the current management of perforated diverticulitis, with a focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the surgical options for the treatment of Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis.

Laparoscopic versus open resection for sigmoid diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

Diverticular disease is a common condition in Western industrialised countries. Most individuals remain asymptomatic throughout life; however, 25% experience acute diverticulitis. The standard treatment for acute diverticulitis is open surgery. Laparoscopic surgery - a minimal-access procedure - offers an alternative approach to open surgery, as it is characterised by reduced operative stress that may translate into shorter hospitalisation and more rapid recovery, as well as improved quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgical resection compared with open surgical resection for individuals with acute sigmoid diverticulitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 23 February 2017); Ovid Embase (1974 to 23 February 2017); clinicaltrials.gov (February 2017); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry (February 2017). We reviewed the bibliographies of identified trials to search for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing elective or emergency laparoscopic sigmoid resection versus open surgical resection for acute sigmoid diverticulitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the domains of risk of bias from each included trial, and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we planned to calculate mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for outcomes such as hospital stay, and standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs for quality of life and global rating scales, if researchers used different scales.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials with 392 participants met the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in three European countries (Switzerland, Netherlands, and Germany). The median age of participants ranged from 62 to 66 years; 53% to 64% were female. Inclusion criteria differed among studies. One trial included participants with Hinchey I characteristics as well as those who underwent Hartmann's procedure; the second trial included only participants with "a proven stage II/III disease according to the classification of Stock and Hansen"; the third trial considered for inclusion patients with "diverticular disease of sigmoid colon documented by colonoscopy and 2 episodes of uncomplicated diverticulitis, one at least being documented with CT scan, 1 episode of complicated diverticulitis, with a pericolic abscess (Hinchey stage I) or pelvic abscess (Hinchey stage II) requiring percutaneous drainage."We determined that two studies were at low risk of selection bias; two that reported considerable dropouts were at high risk of attrition bias; none reported blinding of outcome assessors (unclear detection bias); and all were exposed to performance bias owing to the nature of the intervention.Available low-quality evidence suggests that laparoscopic surgical resection may lead to little or no difference in mean hospital stay compared with open surgical resection (3 studies, 360 participants; MD -0.62 (days), 95% CI -2.49 to 1.25; I² = 0%).Low-quality evidence suggests that operating time was longer in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the open surgery group (3 studies, 360 participants; MD 49.28 (minutes), 95% CI 40.64 to 57.93; I² = 0%).We are uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative pain between day 1 and day 3 more effectively than open surgery. Low-quality evidence suggests that laparoscopic surgery may improve postoperative pain at the fourth postoperative day more effectively than open surgery (2 studies, 250 participants; MD = -0.65, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.25).Researchers reported quality of life differently across trials, hindering the possibility of meta-analysis. Low-quality evidence from one trial using the Short Form (SF)-36 questionnaire six weeks after surgery suggests that laparoscopic intervention may improve quality of life, whereas evidence from two other trials using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) v3 and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index score, respectively, suggests that laparoscopic surgery may make little or no difference in improving quality of life compared with open surgery.We are uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery improves the following outcomes: 30-day postoperative mortality, early overall morbidity, major and minor complications, surgical complications, postoperative times to liquid and solid diets, and reoperations due to anastomotic leak.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results from the present comprehensive review indicate that evidence to support or refute the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgical resection for treatment of patients with acute diverticular disease is insufficient. Well-designed trials with adequate sample size are needed to investigate the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery towards important patient-oriented (e.g. postoperative pain) and health system-oriented outcomes (e.g. mean hospital stay).

Laparoscopic Lavage in the Management of Hinchey Grade III Diverticulitis: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of laparoscopic lavage and sigmoid resection in perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis.

BACKGROUND

Peritonitis secondary to perforated diverticulitis has conventionally been managed by resection and stoma formation. Case series have suggested that patients can be safely managed with laparoscopic lavage, resulting in reduced mortality and stoma formation. Recently, 3 randomized controlled trials have published contradictory conclusions.

METHODS

MEDLINE from 1946 to present, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane database of Registered clinical trials and EMBASE (all via OVID) were searched using the terms "laparoscopy" AND ("primary resection" OR "Hartmann procedure", OR "sigmoidectomy"), AND "Diverticulitis", AND "Peritonitis" AND "therapeutic irrigation" or "lavage" AND randomized controlled trial and any derivatives of those terms. We included all randomized controlled trials. Data were extracted from each study using a purpose-designed template. Statistical analysis was undertaken using Revman 5.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials were identified from 48 potential studies. The analysis included 307 patients of whom 159 underwent laparoscopic lavage. Overall, the rate of reintervention within 30 days postoperatively was 45/159 (28.3%) in the lavage group and 13/148 (8.8%) in the resection group (relative risk 3.01, 95% confidence interval 1.15-7.90). There was no significant difference in Intensive Care Unit admissions, 30 and 90-day mortality, or stoma rates at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic lavage used in the management of Hinchey grade III diverticulitis leads to more reinterventions within 30 days postoperatively, but does not increase the 30 or 90-day mortality rates compared with sigmoid resection.

Methodological overview of systematic reviews to establish the evidence base for emergency general surgery

BACKGROUND

The evidence for treatment decision-making in emergency general surgery has not been summarized previously. The aim of this overview was to review the quantity and quality of systematic review evidence for the most common emergency surgical conditions.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of the most common conditions requiring unplanned admission and treatment managed by general surgeons were eligible for inclusion. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases were searched to April 2014. The number and type (randomized or non-randomized) of included studies and patients were extracted and summarized. The total number of unique studies was recorded for each condition. The nature of the interventions (surgical, non-surgical invasive or non-invasive) was documented. The quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR checklist.

RESULTS

The 106 included reviews focused mainly on bowel conditions (42), appendicitis (40) and gallstone disease (17). Fifty-one (48·1 per cent) included RCTs alone, 79 (74·5 per cent) included at least one RCT and 25 (23·6 per cent) summarized non-randomized evidence alone. Reviews included 727 unique studies, of which 30·3 per cent were RCTs. Sixty-five reviews compared different types of surgical intervention and 27 summarized trials of surgical versus non-surgical interventions. Fifty-seven reviews (53·8 per cent) were rated as low risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

This overview of reviews highlights the need for more and better research in this field.

A historical review of surgery for peritonitis secondary to acute colonic diverticulitis: from Lockhart-Mummery to evidence-based medicine

The management of patients with colonic diverticular perforation is still evolving. Initial lavage with or without simple suture and drainage was suggested in the late 19th century, replaced progressively by the three-stage Mayo Clinic or the two-stage Mickulicz procedures. Fears of inadequate source control prompted the implementation of the resection of the affected segment of colon with formation of a colostomy (Hartman procedure) in the 1970’s. Ensuing development of the treatment strategies was driven by the recognition of the high morbidity and mortality and low reversal rates associated with the Hartman procedure. This led to the wider use of resection and primary anastomosis during the 1990’s.

The technique of lavage and drainage regained popularity during the 1990’s. This procedure can also be performed laparoscopically with the advantage of faster recovery and shorter hospital stay. This strategy allows resectional surgery to be postponed or avoided altogether in many patients; and higher rates of primary resection and anastomosis can be achieved avoiding the need for a stoma. The three recent randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic peritoneal lavage alone to resectional surgery reported inconsistent outcomes.

The aim of this review is to review the historical evolution and future reflections of surgical treatment modalities for diffuse purulent and feculent peritonitis. In this review we classified the various surgical strategies according to Krukowski et al. and Vermeulen et al. and reviewed the literature related to surgical treatment separately for each period.

Laparoscopic lavage versus surgical resection for acute diverticulitis with generalised peritonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates current evidence on the therapeutic role of laparoscopic lavage in the management of diverticular peritonitis. A systematic review of the literature was performed on PubMed until June 2016, according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. All randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic lavage with surgical resection, irrespective of anastomosis or stoma formation, were analysed. After assessment of titles and full text, 3 randomised trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall the quality of evidence was low because of serious concerns regarding the risk of bias and imprecision. In the laparoscopic lavage group, there was a statistically significant higher rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.34-4.83), a lower rate of postoperative wound infection (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.51), and a shorter length of postoperative hospital stay during index admission (WMD = -2.03, 95% CI -2.59 to -1.47). There were no statistically significant differences in terms of postoperative mortality at index admission or within 30 days from intervention in all Hinchey stages and in Hinchey stage III, postoperative mortality at 12 months, surgical reintervention at index admission or within 30-90 days from index intervention, stoma rate at 12 months, or adverse events within 90 days of any Clavien-Dindo grade. The surgical reintervention rate at 12 months from index intervention was significantly lower in the laparoscopic lavage group (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.86), but these data included emergency reintervention and planned intervention (stoma reversal). This systematic review and meta-analysis did not demonstrate any significant difference between laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and traditional surgical resection in patients with peritonitis from perforated diverticular disease, in terms of postoperative mortality and early reoperation rate. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with a lower rate of stoma formation. However, the finding of a significantly higher rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess in patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage compared to those who underwent surgical resection is of concern. Since the aim of surgery in patients with peritonitis is to treat the sepsis, if one technique is associated with more postoperative abscesses, then the technique is ineffective. Even so, laparoscopic lavage does not appear fundamentally inferior to traditional surgical resection and this technique may achieve reasonable outcomes with minimal invasiveness.

Is it safe and useful, laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in the treatment of acute diverticulitis of octogenarian patients? A multicenter retroprospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Diverticular disease of the colon also affects older people. Generally, older patients with diverticulitis may be regarded as too risky to undergo surgery. This retroprospective multicentric observational study aims to assess the safety and benefits of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) in elderly patients with perforated sigmoid diverticulitis.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We hospitalized in urgency 100 patients, aged over 75, for sigmoid diverticulitis. Sixty-nine patients were treated with conservative medical therapy, while 31 were treated surgically, in which the surgery was performed in urgency in 18 cases, while in election in 13 cases. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage was made in urgency in five cases.

RESULTS

The mean age of the sample was 81.72. Thirty-one patients underwent surgery, and five patients were treated in urgency with laparoscopic peritoneal lavage. Perioperative mortality was zero. None of the patients who underwent laparoscopic peritoneal lavage showed recurrent disease.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic laparoscopy can be useful in elderly patient, since these patients may benefit from a more conservative surgical strategy. The selection of patients to be subjected to laparoscopic lavage must be very rigorous.

Post-operative morbidity, but not mortality, is worsened by operative delay in septic diverticulitis

PURPOSE

Optimal timing of surgery for acute diverticulitis remains unclear. A non-operative approach followed by elective surgery 6-week post-resolution is favored. However, a subset of patients fail on the non-operative management during index admission. Here, we examine patients requiring emergent operation to evaluate the effect of surgical delay on patient outcomes.

METHODS

Patients undergoing emergent operative intervention for acute diverticulitis were queried using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database from 2005 to 2012. Primary endpoints of 30-day overall morbidity and mortality were evaluated via univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 2,119 patients identified for study inclusion, 57.2 % (n = 1212) underwent emergent operative intervention within 24 h, 26.3 % (n = 558) between days 1-3, 12.9 % (n = 273) between days 3-7, and 3.6 % (n = 76) greater than 7 days from admission. End colostomy was performed in 77.4 % (n = 1,640) of cases. Unadjusted age and presence of major comorbidities increased with operative delay. Further, unadjusted 30-day overall morbidity, mortality, septic complications, and post-operative length of stay increased significantly with operative delay. On multivariate analysis, operative delay was not associated with increased 30-day mortality but was associated with increased 30-day overall morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Hartmann's procedure has remained the standard operation in emergent surgical management of acute diverticulitis. Delay in definitive surgical therapy greater than 24 h from admission is associated with higher rates of morbidity and protracted post-operative length of stay, but there is no increase in 30-day mortality. Prospective study is necessary to further answer the question of surgical timing in acute diverticulitis.

The management of intra-abdominal infections from a global perspective: 2017 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and have been reported as major contributors to non-trauma deaths in the emergency departments worldwide. The cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs are early recognition, adequate source control, and appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Prompt resuscitation of patients with ongoing sepsis is of utmost important. In hospitals worldwide, non-acceptance of, or lack of access to, accessible evidence-based practices and guidelines result in overall poorer outcome of patients suffering IAIs. The aim of this paper is to promote global standards of care in IAIs and update the 2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections.

Acute colonic diverticulitis: an update on clinical classification and management with MDCT correlation

Currently, the most commonly used classification of acute colonic diverticulitis (ACD) is the modified Hinchey classification, which corresponds to a slightly more complex classification by comparison with the original description. This modified classification allows to categorize patients with ACD into four major categories (I, II, III, IV) and two additional subcategories (Ia and Ib), depending on the severity of the disease. Several studies have clearly demonstrated the impact of this classification for determining the best therapeutic approach and predicting perioperative complications for patients who need surgery. This review provides an update on the classification of ACD along with a special emphasis on the corresponding MDCT features of the different categories and subcategories. This modified Hinchey classification should be known by emergency physicians, radiologists, and surgeons in order to improve patient care and management because each category has a specific therapeutic approach.

Laparoscopic lavage versus resection in perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Purulent peritonitis from acute left colon diverticulitis is a relatively common presentation of diverticular disease; historically the treatment was the Hartmann procedure. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage has been proposed as a lesser invasive treatment option with great interest and debate among surgeons and with contrasting results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the results of sigmoid resection with laparoscopic lavage.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to select randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic lavage versus resection in Hinchey III diverticulitis. Studies' selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were done by two independent authors; results were shown as OR with 95 % C.I.

RESULTS

Three RCT were selected for the meta-analysis including 315 patents. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with significantly more reoperations (OR 3.75, p = 0.006) and more intra-abdominal abscesses (OR 3.50, p = 0.0003) with no differences in mortality (OR 0.93, p = 0.92). At 12 months follow up laparoscopic lavage was associated with lesser reoperations (OR 0.32, p = 0.0004); there were no differences in term of stoma presence (OR 0.44 p = 0.27) and mortality (OR 0.74 p = 0.51).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis shows that in acute perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis laparoscopic lavage is comparable to sigmoid resection in term of mortality but it is associated with a significantly higher rate of reoperations and a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess. No differences in term of mortality were demonstrated at follow-up. Further studies are needed to better define the safety and appropriateness of this treatment.

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage: our experience and review of the literature

Introduction

Over the years various therapeutic techniques for diverticulitis have been developed. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) appears to be a safe and useful treatment, and it could be an effective alternative to colonic resection in emergency surgery.

Aim

This prospective observational study aims to assess the safety and benefits of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in perforated sigmoid diverticulitis.

Material and methods

We surgically treated 70 patients urgently for complicated sigmoid diverticulitis. Thirty-two (45.7%) patients underwent resection of the sigmoid colon and creation of a colostomy (Hartmann technique); 21 (30%) patients underwent peritoneal laparoscopic lavage; 4 (5.7%) patients underwent colostomy by the Mikulicz technique; and the remaining 13 (18.6%) patients underwent resection of the sigmoid colon and creation of a colorectal anastomosis with a protective ileostomy.

Results

The 66 patients examined were divided into 3 groups: 32 patients were treated with urgent surgery according to the Hartmann procedure; 13 patients were treated with resection and colorectal anastomosis; 21 patients were treated urgently with laparoscopic peritoneal lavage. We had no intraoperative complications. The overall mortality was 4.3% (3 patients). In the LPL group the morbidity rate was 33.3%.

Conclusions

Currently it cannot be said that LPL is better in terms of mortality and morbidity than colonic resection. These data may, however, be proven wrong by greater attention in the selection of patients to undergo laparoscopic peritoneal lavage.

Laparoscopic treatment of complicated colonic diverticular disease: A review

Up to 10% of acute colonic diverticulitis may necessitate a surgical intervention. Although associated with high morbidity and mortality rates, Hartmann’s procedure (HP) has been considered for many years to be the gold standard for the treatment of generalized peritonitis. To reduce the burden of surgery in these situations and as driven by the accumulated experience in colorectal and minimally-invasive surgery, laparoscopy has been increasingly adopted in the management of abdominal emergencies. Multiple case series and retrospective comparative studies confirmed that with experienced hands, the laparoscopic approach provided better outcomes than the open surgery. This technique applies to all interventions related to complicated diverticular disease, such as HP, sigmoid resection with primary anastomosis (RPA) and reversal of HP. The laparoscopic approach also provided new therapeutic possibilities with the emergence of the laparoscopic lavage drainage (LLD), particularly interesting in the context of purulent peritonitis of diverticular origin. At this stage, however, most of our knowledge in these fields relies on studies of low-level evidence. More than ever, well-built large randomized controlled trials are necessary to answer present interrogations such as the exact place of LLD or the most appropriate sigmoid resection procedure (laparoscopic HP or RPA), as well as to confirm the advantages of laparoscopy in chronic complications of diverticulitis or HP reversal.

WSES Guidelines for the management of acute left sided colonic diverticulitis in the emergency setting

Acute left sided colonic diverticulitis is one of the most common clinical conditions encountered by surgeons in acute setting. A World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) Consensus Conference on acute diverticulitis was held during the 3rd World Congress of the WSES in Jerusalem, Israel, on July 7th, 2015. During this consensus conference the guidelines for the management of acute left sided colonic diverticulitis in the emergency setting were presented and discussed. This document represents the executive summary of the final guidelines approved by the consensus conference.