Laparoscopic Versus Open Emergent Sigmoid Resection for Perforated Diverticulitis

Usefulness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal perforation: a single-center retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal perforation owing to a significant lack of evidence in this field.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed the data of 70 patients who underwent emergency surgery for colorectal perforations between January 2017 and December 2023. The surgical outcomes of the patients who underwent open and laparoscopic surgeries were statistically compared. The primary endpoints were postoperative mortality and complications. The secondary endpoints included blood loss, surgical time, length of hospital stay, and 1-year overall survival.

RESULTS

Overall, 28 patients underwent open surgery and 42 underwent laparoscopic surgery. No significant difference was noted in the postoperative mortality or overall rate of severe complications between the two groups. The incidence of superficial and deep incisional surgical site infection was lower in the laparoscopic surgery group (35.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), while the surgical time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (175.6 ± 92.2 min vs. 290.0 ± 102.3 min, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in blood loss, length of hospital stay, or 1-year overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal perforation markedly reduced superficial and deep incisional surgical site infection, with no substantial difference in mortality or severe complications.

Management of Diverticulitis: A Review

Importance

Care of patients with diverticulitis is undergoing a paradigm shift. This narrative review summarizes the current evidence for left-sided uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis. The latest pathophysiology, advances in diagnosis, and prevention strategies are also reviewed.

Observations

Treatment is moving to the outpatient setting, physicians are forgoing antibiotics for uncomplicated disease, and the decision for elective surgery for diverticulitis has become preference sensitive. Furthermore, the most current data guiding surgical management of diverticulitis include the adoption of new minimally invasive and robot-assisted techniques.

Conclusions and Relevance

This review provides an updated summary of the best practices in the management of diverticulitis to guide colorectal and general surgeons in their treatment of patients with this common disease.

Open Versus Minimally Invasive Emergent Colectomy for Diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the acute management of diverticulitis remains controversial. Using a national cohort, we examined the relationship between operative approaches with acute clinical and financial outcomes.

METHODS

Adults undergoing emergent colectomy for diverticulitis were tabulated from the 2015-2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Regression models were developed to analyze the association between open and MIS approaches with major adverse events (MAE), as well as secondary endpoints. A subgroup analysis was conducted to compare outcomes between open and MIS requiring conversion to open (CTO).

RESULTS

Of 9194 patients, 1580 (17.3%) underwent MIS colectomy. The proportion of MIS resection increased from 15.1% in 2015 to 19.1% in 2020 (nptrend<.001). Compared to Open, MIS patients were younger, equally likely to be female, had a lower proportion of patients with ASA class ≥3, and a higher BMI. Preoperatively, MIS patients were less frequently diagnosed with sepsis. Following adjustment with open as reference, MIS approach had reduced odds of MAE (AOR .56), ostomy creation (AOR .12), shorter postoperative length of stay (LOS; β -1.63), and a lower likelihood of nonhome discharge (AOR .45, all P < .001). Additionally, CTO was linked to decreased likelihood of MAE (AOR .78, P = .01), ostomy creation (AOR .02, P < .001), comparable LOS (β -.46, P = .41), and reduced odds of nonhome discharge (AOR .58, P < .001), relative to open.

DISCUSSION

Compared to planned open colectomy, MIS resection was associated with improved clinical and financial outcomes, even in cases of CTO. Our findings suggest that whenever possible, MIS should be attempted first in emergent colectomy for diverticulitis. Nevertheless, future prospective studies are likely needed to further elucidate specific patient and clinical factors.

LapEmerge trial: study protocol for a laparoscopic approach for emergency colon resection-a multicenter, open label, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Due to faster recovery and lower morbidity rates, laparoscopy has become the gold standard in elective colorectal surgery for both the benign and malignant forms of the disease. A substantial proportion of colorectal operations are, however, carried out in emergency settings, and most of the emergency resections are still performed open. The aim of this study is to compare the laparoscopic versus open approach for emergency colorectal surgery.

METHOD/DESIGN

This is a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial including adult patients presenting with a condition requiring emergency colorectal resection.

DISCUSSION

Previous studies cautiously recommend wider use of laparoscopy in emergency colorectal resections, but all earlier reports are retrospective, are mostly single-center studies, and have limited numbers of patients. Laparoscopy may involve some unpredictable risks that have not yet been reported because of the infrequent use of the techniqueded to assess the safety of laparoscopy as well as the advantages and disadvantages of open compared with laparoscopic emergency surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration number:  ClinicalTrials.gov   NCT05005117 . Registered on August 12, 2021.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement.

RESULTS

A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Propensity score matching analysis of laparoscopic surgery vs. open approach in 4 297 adult patients with acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis or gastrointestinal tract perforation: a prospective multicentre study of nationwide outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous studies indicated that laparoscopic surgery could improve postoperative outcomes in acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis, perforated gastroduodenal ulcer, or acute diverticulitis, but some reported opposite results or differences in the magnitude of improvement. A contemporary analysis using propensity score matching that compares outcomes is lacking.

METHODS

Over a 6-month period, 38 centres (5% of all public hospitals) attending emergency general surgery patients on a 24 h, 7 days a week basis, enroled all consecutive adult patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery or open approach.

RESULTS

The study included 2 645 patients with acute appendicitis [32 years (22-51), 44.3% women], 1 182 with acute cholecystitis [65 years (48-76); 46.7% women], and 470 with gastrointestinal tract perforation [65 years (50-76); 34% women]. After propensity score matching, hospital stays decreased in acute appendicitis [open, 2 days (2-4); lap, 2 days (1-4); P <0.001], acute cholecystitis [open, 7 days (4-12); lap, 4 days (3-6); P <0.001], and gastrointestinal tract perforation [open, 11 days (7-17); lap, 6 days (5-8.5); P <0.001]. A decrease in 30-day morbidity was observed in acute appendicitis (open, 15.7%; lap, 9.7%; P <0.001), acute cholecystitis (open, 41%; lap, 21.7%; P <0.001), and gastrointestinal tract perforation (open, 45.2%; lap, 23.5%; P <0.001). A decrease in 30-day mortality was found in acute cholecystitis (open, 8.8%; lap, 2.8%; P =0.013) and gastrointestinal tract perforation (open, 10.4%; lap, 1.7%; P =0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

This clinically based, multicentre study suggests that an initial laparoscopic approach could be considered not only in patients with acute appendicitis or acute cholecystitis but also in patients with a perforation of the gastrointestinal tract.

Sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: To divert or not to divert-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of proximal diversion in patients undergoing sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis for diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with a proximal diversion in perforated diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis.

METHOD

A systematic literature search on sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion for diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis was conducted in the Medline and EMBASE databases. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies reporting the primary outcome of interest (30-day mortality) were included. Secondary outcomes were major morbidity, anastomotic leak, reoperation, stoma nonreversal rates, and length of hospital stay. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies involving 544 patients (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 287 versus sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion: 257) were included. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.53-2.40, P = .76), major morbidity (odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 0.80-2.44, P = .24), anastomotic leak (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.099-1.20, P = .10), reoperation (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.46, P = .20), and length of stay (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 12.1 vs resection and primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy: 15 days, P = .44) were similar between groups. The risk of definitive stoma was significantly lower after sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis (odds ratio 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.006-0.35, P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with or without proximal diversion have similar postoperative outcomes in selected patients with diverticulitis and diffuse peritonitis. However, further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.

Open versus laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Hartmann's procedure is traditionally performed in emergency situations where single-step procedures with immediate anastomosis may be unsafe. However, it can be associated with significant morbidity and low colostomy reversal rate. Whilst randomised controlled trials and a Cochrane review have reported strong evidence of laparoscopic over open colectomies, no such reviews have been performed for Hartmann's procedure. Hence, this paper aims to summarise the existing evidence to determine the efficacy of laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure over its open counterpart.

METHODS

Embase, Medline and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to 15 November 2020 for keywords relating to 'laparoscopy' and 'Hartmann' using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Odds ratio was estimated for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference was estimated for continuous outcomes.

RESULTS

From the 836 articles yielded from the search strategy, 12 articles were selected for meta-analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure (LHP) allows for a shorter length of stay, and a lower risk of overall surgical site infections and superficial surgical site infections. There was no significant difference in other outcomes. Single-arm analysis of LHP also showed an unprecedented high colostomy reversal rate of over 80%.

CONCLUSION

In clinically suitable patients, laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure has benefits over open Hartmann's procedure. Despite the selection bias of single-arm studies, LHP has reported a high stoma reversal rate of over 80%. Future well-controlled studies should be done to affirm the findings.

Laparoscopic versus open emergent colectomy for ischemic colitis: a propensity score-matched comparison

Introduction

Laparoscopic colectomy is rarely performed for ischemic colitis. The aim of this propensity score-matched study was to compare preoperative characteristics, intraoperative details and short-term outcomes for emergent laparoscopic colectomy versus the traditional open approach for patients with ischemic colitis.

Methods

Retrospective review of 96 patients who underwent emergent colectomy for ischemic colitis between January 2011 and December 2020 (39 via laparoscopy, 57 via laparotomy) was performed. We compared short-term outcomes after using a one-to-one ratio and nearest-neighbor propensity score matching to obtain similar preoperative and intraoperative parameters in each group.

Results

Patients in the open group experienced more surgical site complications (52.6% vs. 23.0%, p = 0.004), more intra-abdominal abscesses (47.3% vs. 17.9%, p = 0.003), longer need for ventilator support (20 days vs. 0 days, p < 0.001), more major complications (77.2% vs. 43.5%, p = 0.001), higher mortality (49.1% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.004), and longer hospital stay (32 days vs. 19 days, p = 0.001). After propensity score matching (31 patients in each group), patients undergoing open (vs. laparoscopy) had more surgical site complications (45.1% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.030) and required longer ventilator support (14 vs. 3 days, p = 0.039). After multivariate analysis, Charlson Comorbidity Index (p = 0.024), APACHE II score (p = 0.001), and Favier’s classification (p = 0.023) were independent predictors of mortality.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic emergent colectomy for ischemic colitis is feasible and is associated with fewer surgical site complications and better respiratory function, compared to the open approach.

Current Aspects on the Management of Perforated Acute Diverticulitis: A Narrative Review

Unhealthy nutritional habits and the current western lifestyle have led to an increased incidence of acute diverticulitis, which mainly affects older patients. However, the disease course in younger patients might be more severe. It has a continued increase in surgical practice, as it is the most common clinical condition encountered in the emergencies. Diagnosis and management have changed over the past decade. C-reactive protein > 170 mg/L represents the cut-off point between moderate and severe diverticulitis, and a CT scan is mandatory. It demands urgent surgical management and has high morbidity and mortality rate, especially in immunosuppressed patients, reaching up to 25%. According to the contemporary guidelines, there have been certain indications for conservative management and re-evaluation (administration of antibiotics, CT-guided drainage of the abscess, when it is > 4 cm). They include pericolic air bubbles or a small amount of fluid, absence of abscess within a distance of 5 cm from the affected bowel or abscess ≤4 cm. In other cases, Hartmann's sigmoidectomy is the procedure of choice. An alternative choice, nowadays, is resection and primary anastomosis with or without diverting stoma, especially in younger patients. Laparoscopic lavage only versus primary resection has been performed in severe cases of Hinchey III or IV. Damage control surgery, possible open abdomen, and reoperation are recommended in severe sepsis. Hinchey's classification may not be absolutely adequate, and several modifications have been proposed. Current classification criteria (CRP, qSOFA score) are more appropriate. The decision-making must be individualized depending on the hemodynamic status (septic shock), age, comorbidity, immune status, intraoperative findings, and MPI (Mannheim peritonitis index).

Early Recurrence in Resected Gallbladder Carcinoma: Clinical Impact and Its Preoperative Predictive Score

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the only potentially curative therapy for gallbladder carcinoma (GBC). However, the postoperative recurrence rate is high (approximately 50%), and recurrence occasionally develops early after surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 139 patients who underwent macroscopically curative resection for GBC between 2002 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Early recurrence (ER) was defined as recurrence within 6 months after surgery. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed using preoperative factors that may influence early recurrence, namely patient background factors, tumor markers, imaging findings, and body composition parameters obtained preoperatively, to create a predictive score for ER.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 21.9 months (range, 6.2-195.7 months). Postoperative recurrence was observed in 55 (39.6%) patients, of whom 14 (25.5%) developed ER. The median overall survival after surgery was 104.7 months for the non-ER group and 15.7 months for the ER group. On multivariate analysis, high carbohydrate antigen 19-9, low muscle attenuation, high visceral fat attenuation, liver invasion, and other organ invasion on preoperative computed tomography were identified as independent risk factors for ER. A preoperatively predictive scoring system for ER was constructed by weighting the above five factors. The nomogram showed an area under the curve of 0.881, indicating good predictive potential for ER.

CONCLUSIONS

ER in resected GBC indicates a very poor prognosis. The present preoperative scoring system can sufficiently predict ER and may be helpful in determining the optimal treatment strategies.

Emerging evidence and recent controversies in diverticulitis: a 5-year review

Diverticulitis is a common gastrointestinal disease that still garners significant attention and study because of its heterogeneity in presentation and outcome. We provide a review of the newest and most controversial topics in diverticulitis. Recent discoveries on the influence of diet and other environmental risk factors are discussed, showing how the epidemiology of the disease process is shifting away from what was previously felt to be a disorder primarily limited to older western populations. Interestingly, as has long been suspected, genetic mutations and variations associated with the development of diverticulitis are being discovered and are summarized here. The data for non-operative and outpatient management of diverticulitis are reviewed, as are pharmacologic agents studied for use in the secondary prevention of diverticulitis. Lastly, we present controversies in the surgical treatment of diverticulitis. This review will provide a synopsis of the last 5 years of literature relating to diverticulitis.

Robotics for Acute Care in Colorectal Surgery

Robotic surgery is growing exponentially in elective colorectal procedures, but utilization of robotics in urgent and emergency procedures remains low. Robotic surgery can be safely utilized for the management of several acute colorectal operations such as anastomotic leaks, perforated diverticulitis, and more. This chapter discusses safe access principles and planning, as well as technical aspects of these complex procedures, and the pathway to building a 24/7 robotic access culture.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Colorectal Surgery in the Emergency Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare published outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open emergency colorectal surgery, with mortality as primary outcome.

Background

In contrast to the elective setting, the value of laparoscopic emergency colorectal surgery remains unclear.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched until January 6, 2021. Only comparative studies were included. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effect model. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for quality assessment.

Results

Overall, 28 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial were included, comprising 7865 laparoscopy patients and 55,862 open surgery patients. Quality assessment revealed 'good quality' in 16 of 28 observational studies, and low to intermediate risk of bias for the randomized trial. Laparoscopy was associated with significantly lower postoperative mortality compared to open surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.54). Laparoscopy resulted in significantly less postoperative overall morbidity (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65), wound infection (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88), wound dehiscence (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.18-0.77), ileus (OR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.51-0.91), pulmonary (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.78) and cardiac complications (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.90), and shorter length of stay. No meta-analyses were performed for long-term outcomes due to scarcity of data.

Conclusions

The systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a benefit of laparoscopy for emergency colorectal surgery, with a lower risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity. However, the almost exclusive use of retrospective observational study designs with inherent biases should be taken into account.

The impact of obesity and morbid obesity on urgent/emergency colorectal resections: a regional database analysis

BACKGROUND

The obesity rate is projected to reach 50% by 2030. Obesity may be modifiable prior to elective colorectal surgery, but there is no opportunity for weight loss when patients present for urgent/emergency operations. The impact of obesity focused on urgent/emergent colorectal operations has not been fully characterized. The study aim was to determine outcomes of obese patients who undergo urgent/emergency colorectal surgery and differences when compared with elective outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of 30-day outcomes for normal (BMI 18.5-25), obese (BMI 30-39.9), and morbidly obese (BMI > 40) patients in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative between 1/1/2009 and 12/31/2018. Propensity score weighting was used to derive adjusted rates for overall morbidity, mortality, and specific complications. Primary outcome was postoperative complications (any morbidity).

RESULTS

The study included 5268 urgent/emergency and 10,414 elective colorectal surgery patients. Postoperative complications were significantly more common in morbidly obese and obese than the normal BMI group for both urgent/emergency (morbidly obese 42.76% vs 33.75%, p = 0.003; obese 36.46% vs 33.75%, p = 0.043) and elective (morbidly obese 18.17% vs 13.36%, p = 0.004; obese 15.45% vs 13.36%, p = 0.011) operations. Surgical site infections are were significantly more common in morbidly obese and obese BMI groups as compared to normal BMI for both urgent/emergency and elective cases. Mortality was significantly higher in the morbidly obese (14.93% vs 11.44%, p = 0.013) but not obese BMI groups as compared to the normal BMI group for urgent/emergency cases. Mortality for all groups undergoing elective operations was < 1% and with no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Morbid obesity and obesity are associated with complications that are largely driven by surgical site infections after both urgent/emergency and elective colorectal surgery. Obesity is a risk factor difficult to modify prior to urgent/emergency surgery. Managing complications related to obesity after colorectal surgery will be a continued challenge with projected increasing obesity rates.