Is reassessment of Computed Tomography Reports Worthwhile in Acute Diverticulitis?

INTRODUCTION

Since the assessment of the disease severity in acute diverticulitis (AD) is of utmost importance to determine the optimal treatment and the need for follow-up investigations, we wanted to investigate whether the first CT report is compatible with daytime reassessment report and whether the value of initial report changes according to the experience of the radiologist.

METHODS

Consecutive patients from tertiary referral centre with AD were included. CT images done in the emergency department were initially analysed by either resident radiologists or consultant radiologists and then later reanalysed by consultant abdominal radiologists. Discrepancies between reports were noted.

RESULTS

Of total of 562 patients with AD, CT images were reanalysed in 439 cases. In 22 reports (5.0%) the final report was significantly different from the initial report and management changed in 20 cases. In reports of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis, reanalysis changed initial assessment in 4.0% of the cases and in complicated acute diverticulitis (CAD) in 9.1%. When consultant and resident radiologists were compared, there was no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Although no statistical difference could be noted between residents and consultants, the final report was significantly different in overall 5% of the cases when reanalysed at normal working hours by an experienced consultant abdominal radiologist. Therefore, we conclude that reassessment of CT reports is worthwhile in AD.

Risk for colorectal cancer after computed tomography verified acute diverticulitis: A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) can mimic acute diverticulitis and can thus be misdiagnosed. Therefore, colonic evaluation is recommended after an episode of acute diverticulitis. The aim of this study was to analyze the risk of CRC after computed tomography (CT) verified uncomplicated and complicated acute diverticulitis in short-term and, particularly, long-term follow-up to ensure the feasibility of the primary CT imaging in separating patients with uncomplicated and complicated acute diverticulitis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with CT-verified acute diverticulitis in 2003-2012. Data on CT findings and colonic evaluations were analyzed. The patients were divided into those with uncomplicated and complicated acute diverticulitis. Patient charts were reviewed 9-18 years after the initial acute diverticulitis episode.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 270 patients. According to CT scans, 170 (63%) patients had uncomplicated acute diverticulitis and 100 (37%) had complicated acute diverticulitis. Further colonic evaluation was made in 146 (54%) patients. In the whole study population, CRC was found in 7 (2.6%) patients, but CRC was associated with acute diverticulitis in only 4 (1.5%) patients. The short-term risk for CRC was 0.6% (1/170) in uncomplicated acute diverticulitis and 3.0% (3/100) in complicated acute diverticulitis. No additional CRC was found in patients with complicated acute diverticulitis during the long-term follow-up and three cases of CRC found after uncomplicated acute diverticulitis had no observable association with previous diverticulitis.

CONCLUSIONS

In short-term follow-up, the risk of underlying CRC is very low in CT-verified uncomplicated acute diverticulitis but increased in complicated acute diverticulitis. Long-term follow-up revealed no additional CRCs associated with previous acute diverticulitis, indicating that the short-term results remain consistent also in the long run. These long-term results confirm that colonoscopy should be reserved for patients with complicated acute diverticulitis or with persisting or alarming symptoms.

P-070 SYNTHETIC MESH VERSUS BIOLOGICAL IMPLANT TO PREVENT INCISIONAL HERNIA AFTER LOOP-ILEOSTOMY CLOSURE: A RANDOMIZED FEASIBILITY TRIAL

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of synthetic mesh compared to a biological mesh in incisional hernia prevention after loop-ileostomy closure.

Material & Methods

Up to one third of patients experience incisional hernia after loop-ileostomy closure, justifying hernia prevention procedures. Although biological meshes have been widely used in contaminated surgical sites instead of synthetic ones due to complication concerns, previous data on the subject does not support this practice. A randomized, controlled, multi-center non-inferior feasibility trial was conducted from April 2018 – November 2021. Patients (n=102) were randomized 1:1 to receive either a light-weight synthetic polypropylene mesh (Parietene MacroTM, Medtronic) (SM) or a biological mesh (PermacolTM, Medtronic) (BM) to the retrorectus space at loop-ileostomy closure after anterior resection for rectal adenocarcinoma. The primary outcome was rate of surgical site infections (SSI) at 30-day follow-up.

Results

In total, 102 patients were randomized, of which 97 received the intended allocation. At 30-day follow-up, 94 patients (97%) were evaluated. Of patients in the SM group, 1/46 (2%) had SSI and in the BM group 2/48 (4%) had SSI (p>0.90). Uneventful wound healing was recorded in 38/46 (86%) and 43/48 (90%) patients in the SM and BM groups, respectively. One patient from each group underwent reoperation requiring mesh removal (p>0.90).

Conclusions

Both a synthetic mesh and biological mesh were safe in incisional hernia prevention after loop-ileostomy closure. Hernia prevention efficiency will be reported after long-term patient follow-ups.