1
|
Cirocchi R, Popivanov G, Konaktchieva M, Chipeva S, Tellan G, Mingoli A, Zago M, Chiarugi M, Binda GA, Kafka R, Anania G, Donini A, Nascimbeni R, Edilbe M, Afshar S. The role of damage control surgery in the treatment of perforated colonic diverticulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2021; 36:867-879. [PMID: 33089382 PMCID: PMC8026449 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03784-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/09/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Damage control surgery (DCS) is the classic approach to manage severe trauma and has recently also been considered an appropriate approach to the treatment of critically ill patients with severe intra-abdominal sepsis. The purpose of the present review is to evaluate the outcomes following DCS for Hinchey II-IV complicated acute diverticulitis (CAD). METHODS A comprehensive systematic search was undertaken to identify all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies, irrespectively of their size, publication status, and language. Adults who have undergone DCS for CAD Hinchey II, III, or IV were included in this review. DCS is compared with the immediate and definitive surgical treatment in the form of HP, colonic resection, and primary anastomosis (RPA) with or without covering stoma or laparoscopic lavage. We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge. The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was published on Prospero (CRD42020144953). RESULTS Nine studies with 318 patients, undergoing DCS, were included. The presence of septic shock at the presentation in the emergency department was heterogeneous, and the weighted mean rate of septic shock across the studies was shown to be 35.1% [95% CI 8.4 to 78.6%]. The majority of the patients had Hinchey III (68.3%) disease. The remainder had either Hinchey IV (28.9%) or Hinchey II (2.8%). Phase I is similarly described in most of the studies as lavage, limited resection with closed blind colonic ends. In a few studies, resection and anastomosis (9.1%) or suture of the perforation site (0.9%) were performed in phase I of DCS. In those patients who underwent DCS, the most common method of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) was the negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (97.8%). The RPA was performed in 62.1% [95% CI 40.8 to 83.3%] and the 22.7% [95% CI 15.1 to 30.3%]: 12.8% during phase I and 87.2% during phase III. A covering ileostomy was performed in 6.9% [95% CI 1.5 to 12.2%]. In patients with RPA, the overall leak was 7.3% [95% CI 4.3 to 10.4%] and the major anastomotic leaks were 4.7% [95% CI 2.0 to 7.4%]; the rate of postoperative mortality was estimated to be 9.2% [95% CI 6.0 to 12.4%]. CONCLUSIONS The present meta-analysis revealed an approximately 62.1% weighted rate of achieving GI continuity with the DCS approach to generalized peritonitis in Hinchey III and IV with major leaks of 4.7% and overall mortality of 9.2%. Despite the promising results, we are aware of the limitations related to the significant heterogeneity of inclusion criteria. Importantly, the low rate of reported septic shock may point toward selection bias. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical advantages and cost-effectiveness of the DCS approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roberto Cirocchi
- Department of General Surgery, University of Perugia, 06123 Perugia, Italy
| | - Georgi Popivanov
- Department of Surgery, Military Medical Academy, ul. “Sv. Georgi Sofiyski” 3, 1606 Sofia, Bulgaria
| | - Marina Konaktchieva
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Military Medical Academy, ul. “Sv. Georgi Sofiyski” 3, 1606 Sofia, Bulgaria
| | - Sonia Chipeva
- Department of Statistics and Econometrics, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria
| | - Guglielmo Tellan
- Department of Emergency and Acceptance, Critical Areas and Trauma, “Umberto I” University Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
| | - Andrea Mingoli
- Dipartimento di Chirurgia “P. Valdoni”, Sapienza Università di Roma, Viale del Policlinico155, 00161 Rome, Italy
| | - Mauro Zago
- Department of Emergency and Robotic Surgery - A.Manzoni Hospital, Lecco, Italy
| | - Massimo Chiarugi
- Emergency Surgery & Trauma Center, Cisanello University Hospital, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | | | - Reinhold Kafka
- Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Gabriele Anania
- Department of Medical Science, University of Ferrara, 4121 Ferrara, Italy
| | - Annibale Donini
- Department of General Surgery, University of Perugia, 06123 Perugia, Italy
| | - Riccardo Nascimbeni
- Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, 25121 Brescia, Italy
| | - Mohammed Edilbe
- North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust, Carlisle, UK
| | - Sorena Afshar
- North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust, Carlisle, UK
| |
Collapse
|