Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for perforated colonic diverticulitis: a definitive treatment? Retrospective analysis of 63 cases

Evaluation of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for perforated diverticulitis: a national registry-based study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic lavage (LPL) has been suggested for treatment of non-feculent perforated diverticulitis. In this observational study, the surgical treatment of diverticular disease in Sweden outside prospective trials was investigated.

METHODS

This population-based study used the National Patient Register to identify all patients in Sweden with emergency admissions for diverticular disease, as defined by ICD codes from July 2014 to December 2020. Demographics, surgical procedures and outcomes were assessed. In addition, register data since 1997 were retrieved to assess co-morbidities, previous abdominal surgeries, and previous admissions for diverticular disease.

RESULTS

Among 47 294 patients with emergency hospital admission, 2035 underwent LPL (427 patients) or sigmoid resection (SR, 1608 patients) for diverticular disease. The mean follow-up was 30.8 months. Patients selected for LPL were younger, healthier and with less previous abdominal surgery for diverticular disease than those in the SR group (P < 0.01). LPL was associated with shorter postoperative hospital stay (mean 9.4 versus 14.9 days, P < 0.001) and lower 30-day mortality (3.5% versus 8.7%, P < 0.001). Diverticular disease-associated subsequent surgery was more common in the SR group than the LPL group except during the first year (P < 0.001). LPL had a lower mortality rate during the study period (stratified HR 0.70, 95% c.i. 0.53-0.92, P = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic lavage constitutes a safe alternative to sigmoid resection for selected patients judged clinically to require surgery.

Long-term outcomes and risk factors for diverticulitis recurrence after a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in Hinchey III peritonitis

PURPOSE

Recently, treatment of Hinchey III diverticulitis by laparoscopic peritoneal lavage has been questioned. Moreover, long-term outcomes have been scarcely reported. Primary outcome was to determine the recurrence rate of diverticulitis after a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in Hinchey III diverticulitis. Secondary outcomes were identification of associated risk factors for recurrence and elective sigmoidectomy rate.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study in a tertiary referral center was performed. Patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis who underwent a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage between June 2006 and December 2019 were eligible. Diverticulitis recurrence was analyzed according to the Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test, censoring for death, loss of follow-up, or elective sigmoid resection in the absence of recurrence. Risk factors for recurrence were identified using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients had a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (mean age: 63 years; 53.6% women). Four patients had an elective sigmoid resection without recurrences. Recurrence rate was 42% (n = 29) after a median follow-up of 63 months. The cumulative global recurrence at 1, 3, and 5 years was 30% (95% CI, 20-43%), 37.5% (95% CI, 27-51%), and 48.9% (95% CI, 36-64%), respectively. Smoking (HR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.22-6.5; p = 0.016) and episodes of diverticulitis prior to laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (HR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.11-12.81; p < 0.001) were independently associated with an increased risk of recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Diverticulitis recurrence after a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage is high, decreasing after the first year of follow-up. Smoking and previous episodes of acute diverticulitis independently increase the risk of new episodes of diverticulitis.

Management of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis. A multidisciplinary review and position paper

Perforated diverticulitis is an emergent clinical condition and its management is challenging and still debated. The aim of this position paper was to critically review the available evidence on the management of perforated diverticulitis and generalized peritonitis in order to provide evidence-based suggestions for a management strategy. Four Italian scientific societies (SICCR, SICUT, SIRM, AIGO), selected experts who identified 5 clinically relevant topics in the management of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis that would benefit from a multidisciplinary review. The following 5 issues were tackled: 1) Criteria to decide between conservative and surgical treatment in case of perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis; 2) Criteria or scoring system to choose the most appropriate surgical option when diffuse peritonitis is confirmed 3); The appropriate surgical procedure in hemodynamically stable or stabilized patients with diffuse peritonitis; 4) The appropriate surgical procedure for patients with generalized peritonitis and septic shock and 5) Optimal medical therapy in patients with generalized peritonitis from diverticular perforation before and after surgery. In perforated diverticulitis surgery is indicated in case of diffuse peritonitis or failure of conservative management and the decision to operate is not based on the presence of extraluminal air. If diffuse peritonitis is confirmed the choice of surgical technique is based on intraoperative findings and the presence or risk of severe septic shock. Further prognostic factors to consider are physiological derangement, age, comorbidities, and immune status. In hemodynamically stable patients, emergency laparoscopy has benefits over open surgery. Options include resection and anastomosis, Hartmann’s procedure or laparoscopic lavage. In generalized peritonitis with septic shock, an open surgical approach is preferred. Non-restorative resection and/or damage control surgery appear to be the only viable options, depending on the severity of hemodynamic instability. Multidisciplinary medical management should be applied with the main aims of controlling infection, relieving postoperative pain and preventing and/or treating postoperative ileus. In conclusion, the complexity and diversity of patients with diverticular perforation and diffuse peritonitis requires a personalized strategy, involving a thorough classification of physiological derangement, staging of intra-abdominal infection and choice of the most appropriate surgical procedure.

Diverticulitis: An Update From the Age Old Paradigm

For a disease process that affects so many, we continue to struggle to define optimal care for patients with diverticular disease. Part of this stems from the fact that diverticular disease requires different treatment strategies across the natural history- acute, chronic and recurrent.

To understand where we are currently, it is worth understanding how treatment of diverticular disease has evolved. Diverticular disease was rarely described in the literature prior to the 1900’s. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, Painter and Burkitt popularized the theory that diverticulosis is a disease of Western civilization based on the observation that diverticulosis was rare in rural Africa but common in economically developed countries. Previous surgical guidelines focused on early operative intervention to avoid potential complicated episodes of recurrent complicated diverticulitis (e.g., with free perforation) that might necessitate emergent surgery and stoma formation. More recent data has challenged prior concerns about decreasing effectiveness of medical management with repeat episodes and the notion that the natural history of diverticulitis is progressive. It has also permitted more accurate grading of the severity of disease and permitted less invasive management options to attempt conversion of urgent operations into the elective setting, or even avoid an operation altogether.

The role of diet in preventing diverticular disease has long been debated. A high fiber diet appears to decrease the likelihood of symptomatic diverticulitis. The myth of avoid eating nuts, corn, popcorn, and seeds to prevent episodes of diverticulitis has been debunked with modern data. Overall, the recommendations for “diverticulitis diets” mirror those made for overall healthy lifestyle – high fiber, with a focus on whole grains, fruits and vegetables.

Diverticulosis is one of the most common incidental findings on colonoscopy and the eighth most common outpatient diagnosis in the United States. Over 50% of people over the age of 60 and over 60% of people over age 80 have colonic diverticula. Of those with diverticulosis, the lifetime risk of developing diverticulitis is estimated at 10–25%, although more recent studies estimate a 5% rate of progression to diverticulitis. Diverticulitis accounts for an estimated 371,000 emergency department visits and 200,000 inpatient admissions per year with annual cost of 2.1–2.6 billion dollars per year in the United States. The estimated total medical expenditure (inpatient and outpatient) for diverticulosis and diverticulitis in 2015 was over 5.4 billion dollars. The incidence of diverticulitis is increasing.

Besides increasing age, other risk factors for diverticular disease include use of NSAIDS, aspirin, steroids, opioids, smoking and sedentary lifestyle. Diverticula most commonly occur along the mesenteric side of the antimesenteric taeniae resulting in parallel rows. These spots are thought to be relatively weak as this is the location where vasa recta penetrate the muscle to supply the mucosa. The exact mechanism that leads to diverticulitis from diverticulosis is not definitively known.

The most common presenting complaint is of left lower quadrant abdominal pain with symptoms of systemic unwellness including fever and malaise, however the presentation may vary widely. The gold standard cross-sectional imaging is multi-detector CT. It is minimally invasive and has sensitivity between 98% and specificity up to 99% for diagnosing acute diverticulitis. Uncomplicated acute diverticulitis may be safely managed as an out-patient in carefully selected patients. Hospitalization is usually necessary for patients with immunosuppression, intolerance to oral intake, signs of severe sepsis, lack of social support and increased comorbidities. The role of antibiotics has been questioned in a number of randomized controlled trials and it is likely that we will see more patients with uncomplicated disease treated with observation in the future

Acute diverticulitis can be further sub classified into complicated and uncomplicated presentations. Uncomplicated diverticulitis is characterized by inflammation limited to colonic wall and surrounding tissue. The management of uncomplicated diverticulitis is changing. Use of antibiotics has been questioned as it appears that antibiotic use can be avoided in select groups of patients. Surgical intervention appears to improve patient’s quality of life. The decision to proceed with surgery is recommended in an individualized manner.

Complicated diverticulitis is defined as diverticulitis associated with localized or generalized perforation, localized or distant abscess, fistula, stricture or obstruction. Abscesses can be treated with percutaneous drainage if the abscess is large enough. The optimal long-term strategy for patients who undergo successful non-operative management of their diverticular abscess remains controversial. There are clearly patients who would do well with an elective colectomy and a subset who could avoid an operation all together however, the challenge is appropriate risk-stratification and patient selection. Management of patients with perforation depends greatly on the presence of feculent or purulent peritonitis, the extent of contamination and hemodynamic status and associated comorbidities. Fistulas and strictures are almost always treated with segmental colectomy.

After an episode of acute diverticulitis, routine colonoscopy has been recommended by a number of societies to exclude the presence of colorectal cancer or presence of alternative diagnosis like ischemic colitis or inflammatory bowel disease for the clinical presentation. Endoscopic evaluation of the colon is normally delayed by about 6 weeks from the acute episode to reduce the risk associated with colonoscopy. Further study has questioned the need for endoscopic evaluation for every patient with acute diverticulitis. Colonoscopy should be routinely performed after complicated diverticulitis cases, when the clinical presentation is atypical or if there are any diagnostic ambiguity, or patient has other indications for colonoscopy like rectal bleeding or is above 50 years of age without recent colonoscopy.

For patients in whom elective colectomy is indicated, it is imperative to identify a wide range of modifiable patient co-morbidities. Every attempt should be made to improve a patient’s chance of successful surgery. This includes optimization of patient risk factors as well as tailoring the surgical approach and perioperative management. A positive outcome depends greatly on thoughtful attention to what makes a complicated patient “complicated”.

Operative management remains complex and depends on multiple factors including patient age, comorbidities, nutritional state, severity of disease, and surgeon preference and experience. Importantly, the status of surgery, elective versus urgent or emergent operation, is pivotal in decision-making, and treatment algorithms are divergent based on the acuteness of surgery. Resection of diseased bowel to healthy proximal colon and rectal margins remains a fundamental principle of treatment although the operative approach may vary.

For acute diverticulitis, a number of surgical approaches exist, including loop colostomy, sigmoidectomy with colostomy (Hartmann’s procedure) and sigmoidectomy with primary colorectal anastomosis. Overall, data suggest that primary anastomosis is preferable to a Hartman’s procedure in select patients with acute diverticulitis. Patients with hemodynamic instability, immunocompromised state, feculent peritonitis, severely edematous or ischemic bowel, or significant malnutrition are poor candidates. The decision to divert after colorectal anastomosis is at the discretion of the operating surgeon. Patient factors including severity of disease, tissue quality, and comorbidities should be considered. Technical considerations for elective cases include appropriate bowel preparation, the use of a laparoscopic approach, the decision to perform a primary anastomosis, and the selected use of ureteral stents.

Management of the patient with an end colostomy after a Hartmann’s procedure for acute diverticulitis can be a challenging clinical scenario. Between 20 – 50% of patients treated with sigmoid resection and an end colostomy after an initial severe bout of diverticulitis will never be reversed to their normal anatomy. The reasons for high rates of permanent colostomies are multifactorial. The debate on the best timing for a colostomy takedown continues. Six months is generally chosen as the safest time to proceed when adhesions may be at their softest allowing for a more favorable dissection. The surgical approach will be a personal decision by the operating surgeon based on his or her experience. Colostomy takedown operations are challenging surgeries. The surgeon should anticipate and appropriately plan for a long and difficult operation. The patient should undergo a full antibiotic bowel preparation. Preoperative planning is critical; review the initial operative note and defining the anatomy prior to reversal. When a complex abdominal wall closure is necessary, consider consultation with a hernia specialist. Open surgery is the preferred surgical approach for the majority of colostomy takedown operations. Finally, consider ureteral catheters, diverting loop ileostomy, and be prepared for all anastomotic options in advance.

Since its inception in the late 90’s, laparoscopic lavage has been recognized as a novel treatment modality in the management of complicated diverticulitis; specifically, Hinchey III (purulent) diverticulitis. Over the last decade, it has been the subject of several randomized controlled trials, retrospective studies, systematic reviews as well as cost-efficiency analyses. Despite being the subject of much debate and controversy, there is a clear role for laparoscopic lavage in the management of acute diverticulitis with the caveat that patient selection is key.

Segmental colitis associated with diverticulitis (SCAD) is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon in segments that are also affected by diverticulosis, namely, the sigmoid colon. While SCAD is considered a separate clinical entity, it is frequently confused with diverticulitis or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). SCAD affects approximately 1.4% of the general population and 1.15 to 11.4% of those with diverticulosis and most commonly affects those in their 6th decade of life. The exact pathogenesis of SCAD is unknown, but proposed mechanisms include mucosal redundancy and prolapse occurring in diverticular segments, fecal stasis, and localized ischemia. Most case of SCAD resolve with a high-fiber diet and antibiotics, with salicylates reserved for more severe cases. Relapse is uncommon and immunosuppression with steroids is rarely needed. A relapsing clinical course may suggest a diagnosis of IBD and treatment as such should be initiated. Surgery is extremely uncommon and reserved for severe refractory disease.

While sigmoid colon involvement is considered the most common site of colonic diverticulitis in Western countries, diverticular disease can be problematic in other areas of the colon. In Asian countries, right-sided diverticulitis outnumbers the left. This difference seems to be secondary to dietary and genetic factors. Differential diagnosis might be difficult because of similarity with appendicitis. However accurate imaging studies allow a precise preoperative diagnosis and management planning. Transverse colonic diverticulitis is very rare accounting for less than 1% of colonic diverticulitis with a perforation rate that has been estimated to be even more rare. Rectal diverticula are mostly asymptomatic and diagnosed incidentally in the majority of patients and rarely require treatment. Giant colonic diverticula (GCD) is a rare presentation of diverticular disease of the colon and it is defined as an air-filled cystic diverticulum larger than 4 cm in diameter. The pathogenesis of GCD is not well defined.

Overall, the management of diverticular disease depends greatly on patient, disease and surgeon factors. Only by tailoring treatment to the patient in front of us can we achieve optimal outcomes.

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage versus laparoscopic sigmoidectomy in complicated acute diverticulitis: a multicenter prospective observational study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) is feasible in selected patients with pelvic abscess and generalized purulent peritonitis caused by acute diverticulitis. We aimed to compare LPL and laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (LS) in complicated acute diverticulitis.

METHODS

This prospective, observational, multicenter study included patients with a pelvic abscess not amenable to conservative management and patients with Hinchey III acute diverticulitis, from 2015 to 2018. Sixty-six patients were enrolled: 28 (42%) underwent LPL and 38 (58%) underwent LS. In LS, patients had a primary anastomosis, with or without ileostomy, or an end colostomy (HA). Major outcomes were mortality, morbidity, failure of source control, reoperation, length of stay, and diverticulitis recurrence.

RESULTS

Patient demographics were similar in the two groups. In LPL, ASA score > 2 and Mannheim Peritonitis Index were significantly higher (p = 0.05 and 0.004). In LS, 24 patients (63%) had a PA and 14 (37%) an HA. No death was recorded. Overall, morbidity was 33% in LPL and 18% in LS (p = 0.169). However, failure to achieve source control of the peritoneal infection and the need to return to the operating room were more frequent in LPL (p = 0.002 and p = 0.006). Mean postoperative length of stay was comparable (p = 0.08). Diverticular recurrence was significantly higher in LPL (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

LPL is related to a higher reoperation rate, more frequent postoperative ongoing sepsis, and higher recurrence rates. Therefore, laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis carries a high risk of failure in daily practice.

Laparoscopic lavage and drainage for Hinchey III diverticulitis: review of technical aspects

The surgical treatment for patients with generalized peritonitis complicating sigmoid diverticulitis is currently debated; particularly in case of diffuse purulent contamination (Hinchey 3). Laparoscopic lavage and drainage (LLD) has been proposed by some authors as a safe and effective alternative to single- or multi-stage resective surgery. However, among all the different studies on LLD, there is no uniformity in terms of surgical technique adopted and data show significant differences in postoperative outcomes. Aim of this review was to analyze the differences and similarities among the authors in terms of application, surgical technique and outcomes of LLD in Hinchey 3 patients. A bibliographical research was performed by referring to PubMed and Cochrane. "Purulent peritonitis", "Hinchey 3 diverticulitis", "acute diverticulitis", "colonic perforation" and "complicated diverticulitis" were used as key words. Twenty-eight papers were selected, excluding meta-analysis, reviews and case reports with a very small number of patients. The aim of this review was to establish how LLD should be done, suggesting important technical tricks. We found agreement in terms of indications, preoperative management, ports' positioning, antibiotics, enteral feeding and drain management. On the contrast, different statements regarding indications, adhesiolysis and management of colonic hole and failure of laparoscopic lavage are reported. A widespread diffusion of LLD and standardization of its technique are impossible because of data heterogeneity and selection bias in the limited RCTs. It is necessary to wait for long terms results from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in progress to establish the efficacy and safety of this technique. More importantly, an increased number of highly skilled and dedicated colorectal laparoscopic surgeons are required to standardized the procedure.

Multicentre international trial of laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III acute diverticulitis (LLO Study)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic lavage was proposed in the 1990s to treat purulent peritonitis in patients with perforated acute diverticulitis. Prospective randomized trials had mixed results. The aim of this study was to determine the success rate of laparoscopic lavage in sepsis control and to identify a group of patients that could potentially benefit from this treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective multicentre international study included consecutive patients from 24 centres who underwent laparoscopic lavage from 2005 to 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 404 patients were included, 231 of whom had Hinchey III acute diverticulitis. Sepsis control was achieved in 172 patients (74·5 per cent), and was associated with lower Mannheim Peritonitis Index score and ASA grade, no evidence of free perforation, absence of extensive adhesiolysis and previous episodes of diverticulitis. The operation was immediately converted to open surgery in 19 patients. Among 212 patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage, the morbidity rate was 33·0 per cent; the reoperation rate was 13·7 per cent and the 30-day mortality rate 1·9 per cent. Twenty-one patients required readmission for early complications, of whom 11 underwent further surgery and one died. Of the 172 patients discharged uneventfully after laparoscopic lavage, a recurrent episode of acute diverticulitis was registered in 46 (26·7 per cent), at a mean of 11 (range 2-108) months. Relapse was associated with younger age, female sex and previous episodes of acute diverticulitis.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic lavage showed a high rate of successful sepsis control in selected patients with perforated Hinchey III acute diverticulitis affected by peritonitis, with low rates of operative mortality, reoperation and stoma formation.

An outcome analysis of laparoscopic management of diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

All operative procedures for simple or complicated diverticulitis, including primary resection and anastomosis (PRA) with or without a diverting stoma, Hartmann procedure (HP), or stoma reversal, whether done in an elective setting or as an emergency, can be performed laparoscopically. However, owing to low incidence of the disease and complexity of the procedure, there are very few studies on outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid diverticulitis from India.

AIM

The present study was undertaken to evaluate outcomes of laparoscopically treated patients of sigmoid diverticulitis.

METHODS

Prospective observational study enrolled 37 patients with sigmoid diverticulitis managed laparoscopically from March 2015 to March 2017. Demographic, clinical, operative, postoperative, and complication data were entered into a patient proforma and analyzed.

RESULTS

Eleven simple and 26 complicated diverticulitis patients were operated laparoscopically, 22 in emergency setting and 15 in elective setting. Only three patients required conversion to open surgery-two due to dense adhesions and one due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). No patients had ureteric or bowel injury. Eighteen patients underwent laparoscopic PRA without stoma, 11 patients had PRA with stoma, 6 had HP, and 2 had laparoscopic lavage. Results showed lesser blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and fewer complications in the elective group and simple diverticulitis patients. None of the patients had anastomosis-related complications. Two patients had stoma-related complications.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic management of diverticulitis is feasible, safe, provides the benefits of less wound-related complications, and shorter hospital stay and should be the surgical procedure of choice in elective or emergency setting for simple/complicated diverticulitis.

Laparoscopic Lavage in the Management of Perforated Diverticulitis: a Contemporary Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Perforated diverticulitis carries the risk of significant comorbidity and mortality. Although colon resection provides adequate source control, the procedure itself carries morbidity, as well as later stoma reversal procedures. The effectiveness of laparoscopic lavage to treat perforated diverticulitis remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate current studies comparing laparoscopic lavage with colon resection in cases of perforated diverticulitis for the effectiveness in source control, without the need for subsequent interventions, stoma formation, and death.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic database searches were conducted using EMBASE, Pubmed, CINAHL, Cochrane databases, and clinicaltrials.gov following PRISMA guidelines.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included that compared laparoscopic lavage against colon resection for perforated diverticulitis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Risk of bias in RCT's was assessed the Cochrane Assessment of Bias risk tool and Jadad scale. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN OUTCOME

Outcome measures included the total rate of reoperation, rate of reoperation for infection, need for subsequent percutaneous drainage, stoma formation, and mortality rate within 90 days.

RESULTS

Three eligible randomized controlled studies were identified, with a combined total of 372 patients. Laparoscopic lavage carried an increased rate of total reoperations (RR 2.07; CI 1.12-3.84; p = 0.021) and an increased rate of reoperation for infection (RR 5.56; CI 1.97-15.69; p = 0.001) compared with colon resection. In addition, laparoscopic lavage increased the rate of subsequent percutaneous drainage (RR 6.54; CI 1.77-24.16; p = 0.005) compared with colon resection, but a lesser risk of stoma formation within 90 days (RR 0.18; CI 0.12-0.27; p < 0.001). No difference in mortality rate was observed between treatments (RR 1.03; CI 0.45-2.34; p = 0.950).

CONCLUSION

Despite decreased rates of stoma formation and equivalent mortality rates as compared with colon resection, laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III diverticulitis fails to completely control the source of infection. Our data show that laparoscopic lavage is associated with increased rates of total reoperations, increased rates of reoperation for infections, and need for subsequent percutaneous drainage.

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.

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.