Emergency Hartmann's Procedure and Its Reversal: A Totally Laparoscopic 2-Step Surgery for the Treatment of Hinchey III and IV Diverticulitis

Feasibility of laparoscopic resection for perforated diverticulitis: a retrospective observational study of 77 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Perforated colonic diverticulitis with purulent or fecal contamination (PCD) is a surgical emergency with high morbidity and mortality. Traditionally, open surgery as a Hartmann procedure (HP) has been performed. Feasibility of the laparoscopic approach (LA) either with primary anastomosis (PA) or as an HP has been shown, but evidence and implementation into daily routine remain low. We analysed all patients with PCD and emergency surgery at our institution to compare post-operative outcomes between LA and open surgery. Our results should add more evidence about the potential benefit of LA in treating PCD.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis conducted at a tertiary care centre in Germany included all patients with PCD undergoing emergency surgery between June 2007 and February 2019. Mortality and postoperative morbidity according to Clavien-Dindo-Classification are the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints were stoma-free survival and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were identified (41 female/36 male; median age 67.9 years). Sixty patients underwent a LA (conversion in 9 of 60, 15%). PA has been performed in 25 of 77 patients (22 LA, 3 with open surgery). Severe complications and death (Clavien-Dindo-Classification grade IIIb-V) were lower in patients with LA (17/60, 28%) compared to open surgery (9/17, 53%; p = 0.082) as well as the length of hospital stay (LOS; LA 9 days vs. open surgery 17 days; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The LA is feasible in the majority of patients with PCD and may be warranted as a routine in emergency surgery. Although limited by a selection bias of this retrospective study, the LA seems to reduce morbidity and LOS.

Laparoscopic Hartmann Procedure—A Surgery That Still Saves Lives

Background: A Hartmann operation, which is the intervention by which the lower part of the sigmoid and the upper part of the rectum are resected with the closing of the rectal stump and end colostomy, has as its indications: advanced or complicated rectosigmoid neoplasm, moderate biological condition of the patient, peritoneal sepsis, intestinal occlusion and fragile colonic wall, especially in the context of inflammatory changes. The Hartmann procedure can save lives even at the cost of a stoma reversal failure. Methods: The cases operated with the Hartmann procedure by an open approach or laparoscopic approach in our clinic, between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020, were admitted in this study and their medical records were reviewed, also making a comparison between the two types of approach. Univariate statistical comparisons but also a multivariate analysis was performed. Results: We performed 985 operations for intestinal and colonic occlusion (7.15% of the total operations in the clinic), 531 (54%) were non-tumor occlusions and 454 (46%) were occlusive tumors (88 Hartmann operations). Of these, 7.3% were laparoscopically performed (7 laparoscopic Hartmann operations and 23 diagnostic laparoscopies). A total of 11 cases (18%) also had colonic perforation. We compared laparoscopic Hartmann with open Hartmann and observed the benefits of laparoscopy for postoperative morbidity and mortality. The presence of pulmonary and cardiac morbidities is associated with the occurrence of general postoperative morbidities, while peritonitis is statistically significantly associated with the occurrence of local complications that are absent after the laparoscopic approach. Conclusions: The Hartmann procedure is still nowadays an operation widely used in emergency situations. Laparoscopy may become standard for the Hartmann procedure and reversal of the Hartmann procedure, but the percentage of laparoscopy remains low due to advanced or complicated colorectal cancer, poor general condition both at the first and second intervention, and the difficulties of reversal of the Hartmann procedure.

Association of hospital volume with conversion to open from minimally invasive colectomy in patients with diverticulitis: A national analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the known advantages of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for diverticular disease, the impact of conversions to open (CtO) colectomy remains understudied. The present study used a nationally representative database to characterize risk factors and outcomes associated with CtO in patients with diverticular disease.

METHODS

All elective adult hospitalizations entailing colectomy for diverticulitis were identified in the 2017-2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Annual institutional caseloads of MIS and open colectomy were independently tabulated. Restricted cubic splines were utilized to non-linearly estimate the risk-adjusted association between hospital volumes and CtO. Additional regression models were developed to evaluate the association of CtO with outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 110,281 patients with diverticulitis who met study criteria, 39.3% underwent planned open colectomy, 53.3% completed MIS, and 7.4% had a CtO. Following adjustment, an inverse relationship between hospital MIS volume and risk of CtO was observed. In contrast, increasing hospital open volume was positively associated with greater risk of CtO. On multivariable analysis, CtO was associated with lower odds of mortality (AOR 0.3, p = 0.001) when compared to open approach, and similar risk of mortality when compared to completed MIS (AOR 0.7, p = 0.436).

CONCLUSION

In the present study, institutional MIS volume exhibited inverse correlation with adjusted rates of CtO, independent of open colectomy volume. CtO was associated with decreased rates of mortality compared to planned open approach but equivalence risk relative to completed MIS. Our findings highlight the importance of MIS experience and suggest that MIS may be safely pursued as the initial surgical approach among diverticulitis patients.

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 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.

Minimally Invasive Management of Diverticular Disease

Traditionally, management of complicated diverticular disease has involved open damage control operations with large definitive resections and colostomies. Studies are now showing that in a subset of patients who would typically have undergone an open Hartmann's procedure for Hinchey III/IV diverticulitis, a laparoscopic approach is equally safe, and has better outcomes. Similar patients may be good candidates for primary anastomosis to avoid the morbidity and subsequent reversal of a colostomy. While most operations for diverticulitis across the country are still performed open, there has been an incremental shift in practice toward minimally invasive approaches in the elective setting. The most recent data from large trials, most notably the SIGMA trial, found laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy is associated with fewer short-term and long-term complications, decreased pain, improvement in length of stay, and maintains better cost-effectiveness than open resections. Some studies even demonstrate that robotic sigmoid resections can maintain a similar if not more reduction in morbidity as the laparoscopic approach while still remaining cost-effective. Intraoperative approaches also factor into improving outcomes. One of the most feared complications in colorectal surgery is anastomotic leak, and many studies have sought to find ways to minimize this risk. Factors to consider to minimize incidence of leak are the creation of tension-free anastomoses, amount of contamination, adequacy of blood supply, and a patient's use of steroids. Techniques supported by data that decrease anastomotic leaks include preoperative oral antibiotic and mechanical bowel prep, intraoperative splenic flexure mobilization, low-tie ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery, and use of indocyanine green immunofluorescence to assess perfusion. In summary, the management of benign diverticular disease is shifting from open, morbid operations for a very common disease to a minimally invasive approach. In this article, we review those approaches shown to have better outcomes, greater patient satisfaction, and fewer complications.

Open vs Minimally Invasive Approach for Emergent Colectomy in Perforated Diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, perforated diverticulitis has been managed with an open approach, with a Hartmann procedure or a colectomy with primary anastomosis. Minimally invasive surgery is associated with postoperative advantages in the elective setting and may show a benefit in the emergent setting.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes of open vs minimally invasive approaches for emergent perforated diverticulitis.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted colectomy database using propensity score matching.

SETTINGS

Interventions were performed in hospitals participating in the national database.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent emergent colectomy from 2012 to 2017 were included. Procedures were divided into Hartmann procedure and primary anastomosis. Open vs minimally invasive groups were defined by intention to treat.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes measures included length of stay and overall morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 130,616 patients, 7105 met inclusion criteria (4486 Hartmann procedure and 2619 primary anastomosis). A total of 1989 open Hartmann procedure cases were matched to 663 minimally invasive cases. The minimally invasive group underwent longer operations and had lower rates of respiratory failure. There were no differences in overall complications, mortality, length of stay, or home discharge. In the primary anastomosis group, 1027 cases were matched 1:1. The minimally invasive approach was associated with longer operative times, but reduced wound dehiscence, sepsis, bleeding, overall complications, and length of stay. No difference was detected in anastomotic leak, mortality, reoperation, or readmission rates.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations include retrospective nature, data loss, nonuniformity, selection bias, and coding errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergent minimally invasive primary anastomosis results in a shorter length of stay and decreased 30-day morbidity in comparison with open primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis. Emergent open and minimally invasive Hartmann procedures for perforated diverticulitis have comparable outcomes, perhaps because of a 40% conversion rate. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B421.

ABORDAJE ABIERTO VERSUS MNIMAMENTE INVASIVO PARA COLECTOMA DE EMERGENCIA EN DIVERTICULITIS PERFORADA

ANTECEDENTES:Tradicionalmente, la diverticulitis perforada se ha tratado con un abordaje abierto, con un procedimiento de Hartmann o una colectomía con anastomosis primaria. La cirugía mínimamente invasiva se asocia con ventajas posoperatorias en el escenario electivo y puede mostrar beneficio en el escenario emergente.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar los resultados posoperatorios del abordaje abierto versus el mínimamente invasivo para la diverticulitis perforada emergente.DISEÑO:Ésta fue una revisión retrospectiva de la base de datos de colectomía dirigida del Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Americano de Cirujanos utilizando el pareamiento por puntaje de propensión.ESCENARIO:Las intervenciones se realizaron en los hospitales participantes en la base de datos nacional.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes que fueron sometidos a colectomía emergente de 2012 a 2017. Los procedimientos se dividieron en procedimiento de Hartmann y anastomosis primaria. Los grupos abierto versus mínimamente invasivo se definieron por intención de tratar.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Las medidas de resultado incluyeron la duración de la estancia, la morbilidad general y la mortalidad.RESULTADOS:De 130,616 pacientes, 7,105 cumplieron los criterios de inclusión (4,486 procedimiento de Hartmann y 2,619 anastomosis primaria). 1,989 casos abiertos de procedimientos de Hartmann se emparejaron con 663 casos mínimamente invasivos. El grupo mínimamente invasivo se sometió a operaciones más prolongadas y tuvo tasas más bajas de insuficiencia respiratoria. No hubo diferencias en las complicaciones generales, la mortalidad, la duración de la estancia o el alta domiciliaria. En el grupo de anastomosis primaria, 1,027 casos se emparejaron 1: 1. El abordaje mínimamente invasivo se asoció con tiempos quirúrgicos más prolongados, pero también con tasas reducidas de dehiscencia de herida, sepsis, sangrado, complicaciones generales y la duración de la estancia. No se detectaron diferencias en las tasas de fuga anastomótica, mortalidad, reintervención o reingreso.LIMITACIONES:Las limitaciones incluyen la naturaleza retrospectiva, pérdida de datos, falta de uniformidad, sesgo de selección y errores de codificación.CONCLUSIONES:La anastomosis primaria mínimamente invasiva emergente resulta en una estancia más corta y una disminución de la morbilidad a los 30 días en comparación con la anastomosis primaria abierta para la diverticulitis perforada. El procedimiento de Hartmann abierto y mínimamente invasivo de emergencia para la diverticulitis perforada tiene resultados comparables, quizás debido a una tasa de conversión del 40%. Consulte el Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B421.

Reversal of Hartmann's Procedure: Evaluating Outcomes of Single-Port Laparoscopic Approach Versus Conventional Approach

Bowel restoration following Hartmann's procedure (HP) remains a topic of discussion and innovation. This article seeks to highlight and analyze the outcomes of conventional reversal approaches such as open surgery (OS) and conventional laparoscopic (CL) to single-port laparoscopic reversal (SPLR) approach to evaluate whether SPLR is a feasible alternative to the OS or CL approach. A PubMed search using keywords yielded 5,750 articles. After applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 40 articles of relevance were reviewed, and endpoints considered. These included 13 systematic reviews and 27 observational reviews, three of which identified themselves as retrospective or comparative studies. The analysis showed overwhelming support for CL over OS as a choice for HP reversal. Studies comparing SPLR to CL showed SPLR to be a safe and feasible alternative, given its significantly shorter operating times, hospitalization times, and complication rates.

Role and Outcome of Laparoscopic/Minimally Invasive Surgery for Variety of Colorectal Emergencies

BACKGROUND

Recently, the laparoscopic or minimally invasive approach has become common practice for planned colorectal malignancies. Its use in the emergency setting is limited by various factors, including resource availability and surgical expertise. However, more recent evidence suggests a laparoscopic approach to colorectal emergencies, which is comparable with laparoscopic routine work, and often promising. In this study, authors have investigated the outcome of the laparoscopic approach in both benign and malignant colorectal emergencies.

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (theater records, histology database, and discharge records) over the course of 9 years. The standard surgical approach included conventional laparoscopic and single-port technique (single-incision laparoscopic surgery). The outcome variables included in the final analysis were: success of the minimally invasive approach, conversion rate, postoperative complications, return to theater, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 202 (males, 110 and females, 92) emergency patients with a median age of 59 years underwent surgery between December 2009 and 2019. The mean operating time was 169 minutes and median American Society of Anesthesiology grade III. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery was used in 19 patients (9.4%). The conversion to open surgery was 12.3% (n=25). The majority of them had primary anastomosis (n= 132, 65.3%).The complications from most to least frequent were: CONCLUSION:: The favorable results obtained in this study underline the theme that with the availability of resources and expertise, it is possible to offer minimal invasive approach to emergency colonic pathology.

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.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Emergent Sigmoid Resection for Perforated Diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

Potential advantages of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis are still under consideration. This study is designed to determine if emergent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis is associated with outcomes comparable to the traditional open approach.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons-National-Surgical-Quality-Improvement-Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried for laparoscopic and open emergent sigmoidectomy cases for perforated diverticulitis from 2012 through 2017. Using propensity score weights, 30-day outcomes between laparoscopic and open approaches were compared in two ways: one with converted cases as a separate group and another with converted cases combined with the laparoscopic-completed group (intention-to-treat).

RESULTS

A total of 3756 cases met inclusion criteria-282 laparoscopic-completed, 175 laparoscopic-converted-to-open, and 3299 open. The laparoscopic-completed approach had significantly better outcomes than open and laparoscopic-converted cases. When combining laparoscopic-completed and laparoscopic-converted cases (intention-to-treat), the laparoscopic approach still had significantly fewer complications per patient, less unplanned intubation (p = 0.01), and acute renal failure (p = 0.005) than the open group. Laparoscopic groups had longer operating times and shorter hospital length of stay than the open group. Subgroup analysis comparing laparoscopic and open Hartmann's procedure and primary anastomosis with and without diverting stoma also showed favorable outcomes for the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic emergent sigmoid resection for perforated diverticulitis is associated with favorable outcomes compared to the open approach. Hartmann's procedure is still common and conversion rate is high. Training efforts that increase adoption of minimally invasive surgery and decrease conversion rates are justified. Randomized trials comparing laparoscopic and open approaches may allow further critical assessment of these findings.

The role of emergency laparoscopic colectomy for complicated sigmoid diverticulits: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nowadays sigmoidectomy is recommended as "gold standard" treatment for generalized purulent or faecal peritonitis from sigmoid perforated diverticulitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic access versus open sigmoidectomy in acute setting.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs published in PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science.

RESULTS

The search yielded four non-RCTs encompassing 436 patients undergoing either laparoscopic (181 patients, 41.51%) versus open sigmoid resection (255 patients, 58.49%). All studies reported ASA scores, but only four studies reported other severity scoring systems (Mannheim Peritonitis Index, P-POSSUM). Level of surgical expertise was reported in only one study. Laparoscopy improves slightly the rates of overall post-operative complications and post-operative hospital stay, respectively (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.80 and MD -6.53, 95% CI -16.05 to 2.99). Laparoscopy did not seem to improve the other clinical outcomes: rate of Hartmann's vs anastomosis, operating time, reoperation rate and postoperative 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

In this review four prospective studies were included, over 20 + year period, including overall 400 + patients. This meta-analysis revealed significant advantages associated with a laparoscopic over open approach to emergency sigmoidectomy in acute diverticulitis in terms of postoperative complication rates, although no differences were found in other outcomes. The lack of hemodynamic data and reasons for operative approach hamper interpretation of the data suggesting that patients undergoing open surgery were sicker and these results must be considered with extreme caution and this hypothesis requires confirmation by future prospective randomised controlled trials.

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.