Contemporary management of diverticulitis

The treatment of diverticulitis is experiencing a shift in management due to a number of large scale clinical trials. For instance, clinicians are beginning to recognize that avoidance of antibiotics in uncomplicated diverticulitis is not associated with worse outcomes. Additionally, while the decision to proceed with elective surgical resection for recurrent uncomplicated disease is less conclusive and favors a patient-centric approach, complicated disease with a large abscess denotes more aggressive disease and would likely benefit from elective surgical resection. Lastly, in patient with acutely perforated diverticulitis who require urgent surgical intervention, laparoscopic lavage is generally not recommended due to high re-intervention rates and the preferred surgical procedure is primary anastomosis with or without diversion due to high morbidity and low rates of Hartmann reversal.

Laparoscopic Lavage in Complicated Diverticulitis with Colonic Perforation, Always Be Closing?

Laparoscopic lavage is seen as an acceptable alternative to colonic resection in selected patients with acute diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis. There is no consensus on what surgical technique should be used when performing this procedure. This case series describes the disease course of 3 patients with acute diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis treated with laparoscopic lavage and direct suturing of a colonic perforation. All patients (38- and 71-year-old males and a 44-year-old female) were seen in the emergency department due to acute lower abdominal pain. Clinical examination and laboratory and imaging studies were suggestive of perforated diverticular disease. Laparoscopic lavage with placement of drain(s) and direct suturing of a colonic perforation was performed. Postoperative treatment with intravenous antibiotics was continued for a variable term. Postoperative courses were uneventful. Patients were discharged on postoperative days 5, 5, and 7. At almost 1-year follow-up, all patients are in good clinical condition and have not had a recurrent episode of diverticulitis. Therefore, this case series shows promising results of laparoscopic lavage with direct suturing of colonic perforation in patients with diverticulitis with perforation and purulent peritonitis.

Damage control strategy in perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis

Background

The best treatment for perforated colonic diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis is still under debate. Concurrent strategies are resection with primary anastomosis (PRA) with or without diverting ileostomy (DI), Hartmann’s procedure (HP), laparoscopic lavage (LL) and damage control surgery (DCS). This review intends to systematically analyze the current literature on DCS.

Methods

DCS consists of two stages. Emergency surgery: limited resection of the diseased colon, oral and aboral closure, lavage, vacuum-assisted abdominal closure. Second look surgery after 24–48 h: definite reconstruction with colorectal anastomosis (−/ + DI) or HP after adequate resuscitation. The review was conducted in accordance to the PRISMA-P Statement. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE were searched using the following term: (Damage control surgery) AND (Diverticulitis OR Diverticulum OR Peritonitis).

Results

Eight retrospective studies including 256 patients met the inclusion criteria. No randomized trial was available. 67% of the included patients had purulent, 30% feculent peritonitis. In 3% Hinchey stage II diverticulitis was found. In 49% the Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI) was greater than 26. Colorectal anastomosis was constructed during the course of the second surgery in 73%. In 15% of the latter DI was applied. The remaining 27% received HP. Postoperative mortality was 9%, morbidity 31% respectively. The anastomotic leak rate was 13%. 55% of patients were discharged without a stoma.

Conclusion

DCS is a safe technique for the treatment of acute perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis, allowing a high rate of colorectal anastomosis and stoma-free hospital discharge in more than half of the patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01130-5.

Update on the management of sigmoid diverticulitis

Diverticular disease and diverticulitis are the most common non-cancerous pathology of the colon. It has traditionally been considered a disease of the elderly and associated with cultural and dietary habits. There has been a growing evolution in our understanding and the treatment guidelines for this disease. To provide an updated review of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, classification and highlight changes in the medical and surgical management of diverticulitis. Diverticulitis is increasingly being seen in young patients (< 50 years). Genetic contributions to diverticulitis may be larger than previously thought. Potential similarities and overlap with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome exist. Computed tomography imaging represents the standard to classify the severity of diverticulitis. Modifications to the traditional Hinchey classification might serve to better delineate mild and intermediate forms as well as better classify chronic presentations of diverticulitis. Non-operative management is primarily based on antibiotics and supportive measures, but antibiotics may be omitted in mild cases. Interval colonoscopy remains advisable after an acute attack, particularly after a complicated form. Acute surgery is needed for the most severe as well as refractory cases, whereas elective resections are individualized and should be considered for chronic, smoldering, or recurrent forms and respective complications (stricture, fistula, etc.) and for patients with factors highly predictive of recurrent attacks. Diverticulitis is no longer a disease of the elderly. Our evolving understanding of diverticulitis as a clinical entity has led into a more nuanced approach in both the medical and surgical management of this common disease. Non-surgical management remains the appropriate treatment for greater than 70% of patients. In individuals with non-relenting, persistent, or recurrent symptoms and those with complicated disease and sequelae, a segmental colectomy remains the most effective surgical treatment in the acute, chronic, or elective-prophylactic setting.

Drains, Germs, or Steel: Multidisciplinary Management of Acute Colonic Diverticulitis

The medical and surgical management of uncomplicated diverticulitis has changed over the last several years. Although immunocompetent patients or those without comorbidities can be treated with antibiotics as an outpatient, the efficacy of high-fiber intake or drugs such as mesalamine or rifaximin is not yet clearly established in the treatment of acute episodes and in the prevention of recurrences. On the other hand, the choice between antibiotic treatment and percutaneous drainage is not always obvious in diverticulitis complicated by abscess formation, especially for larger abscesses; although the results of studies comparing the two approaches remain controversial, surgery must be pursued for abscesses > 8 cm. For emergency surgery, the debate is still ongoing regarding laparoscopic lavage and surgical resection followed by primary anastomosis, since for both approaches the published reports are not in agreement regarding possible benefits. Therefore, these approaches are recommended only for selected patients under the care of experienced surgeons. Also, the contribution of elective surgery toward the overall approach has been revised; currently, it is reserved primarily for patients with a high risk of recurrence and whenever more conservative treatments were not effective.

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.

Long-term follow-up of a multicentre cohort study on laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for perforated diverticulitis

AIM

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage has increasingly been investigated as a promising alternative to sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis. Most studies only reported outcomes up to 12 months. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate long-term outcomes of patients treated with laparoscopic lavage.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2010, 38 patients treated with laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis in 10 Dutch teaching hospitals were included. Long-term follow-up data on patient outcomes, e.g. diverticulitis recurrence, reoperations and readmissions, were collected retrospectively. The characteristics of patients with recurrent diverticulitis or complications requiring surgery or leading to death, categorized as 'overall complicated outcome', were compared with patients who developed no complications or complications not requiring surgery.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 46 months (interquartile range 7-77), during which 17 episodes of recurrent diverticulitis (seven complicated) in 12 patients (32%) occurred. Twelve patients (32%) required additional surgery with a total of 29 procedures. Fifteen patients (39%) had a total of 50 readmissions. Of initially successfully treated patients (n = 31), 12 (31%) had recurrent diverticulitis or other complications. At 90 days, 32 (84%) patients were alive without undergoing a sigmoidectomy. However, seven (22%) of these patients eventually had a sigmoidectomy after 90 days. Diverticulitis-related events occurred up to 6 years after the index procedure.

CONCLUSION

Long-term diverticulitis recurrence, re-intervention and readmission rates after laparoscopic lavage were high. A complicated outcome was also seen in patients who had initially been treated successfully with laparoscopic lavage with relevant events occurring up to 6 years after initial surgery.

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.

Surgical treatment of diverticulitis and its complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials

PURPOSE

The surgical interventions of diverticulitis vary according to its grade and severity. There is a controversy about the best of these different surgical procedures. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes and complications between different surgical approaches for acute diverticulitis and its complications.

METHODS

Nine electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for RCTs comparing different surgical procedures for different grades of diverticulitis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015032290).

RESULTS

Outcome data were analyzed from five RCTs comparing laparoscopic sigmoid resection (LSR) (n = 247) versus open sigmoid resection (OSR) (n = 237) for treatment of acute complicated diverticulitis with minimal heterogeneity. There was no significant difference in short-term postoperative overall morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-1.31; P = 0.56) and long-term postoperative major morbidity (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46-1.31, P = 0.34). In other six RCTs compared laparoscopic lavage with resection for treatment of perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis, the postoperative mortality rate was non-significant in both short-term (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.79-3.04; P = 0.21) and long-term (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29-1.58; P = 0.36) follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

LSR is not superior over OSR regarding postoperative morbidity and mortality for acute symptomatic diverticulitis. Furthermore, laparoscopic lavage was proved to be as safe as resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis. Further RCTs are still needed to make an accurate decision regarding these and other procedures.

Meta-analysis of surgical strategies in perforated left colonic diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis

PURPOSE

Surgical strategies for perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey stages III and IV) remain controversial. This systematic review aimed to compare the outcome of primary anastomosis, Hartmann procedure and laparoscopic lavage.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted through Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register and Health Technology Assessment Database to identify randomized and non-randomized controlled trials involving patients with perforated left-sided colonic diverticulitis comparing different surgical strategies. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed systematically (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and a meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

After screening 4090 titles and abstracts published between 1958 and January 2018, 148 were selected for full text assessment. Sixteen trials (7 RCTs, 9 non-RCTs) with 1223 patients were included. Mortality rates were not significantly different between Hartmann procedure and primary anastomosis for Hinchey III and IV, neither in the meta-analysis of three RCTs (RR 2.03 (95% CI 0.79 to 5.25); p = 0.14, moderate quality of evidence) nor in the meta-analysis of six observational studies (RR 1.53 (95% CI 0.89 to 2.65); p = 0.13, very low quality of evidence). However, stoma reversal rates were significantly higher in the primary anastomosis group (RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.98); p = 0.008, moderate quality of evidence). Meta-analysis of four RCTs showed no significant difference between laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III compared to sigmoid resection neither for mortality (RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.76); p = 0.79, moderate quality of evidence) nor for major complications (RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.08); p = 0.20, moderate quality of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests similar rates of complications but higher rates of colonic restoration after primary anastomosis compared to Hartmann procedure in perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis (Hinchey III and IV). Results in laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III are not superior to primary resection. However, further studies with a careful interpretation of the meaning of re-interventions are required.

The Multidisciplinary Management of Acute Complicated Diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

Acute complicated diverticulitis (ACD) is an important and increasing issue in Western countries that leads to a significant impact and burden for patients, but also for the society due to its effects on hospital costs. In recent years, essential progression has been made regarding the research and implementation of novel or improved treatment strategies for the various disease entities of ACD. Much debated topics in the multidisciplinary approach of patients with ACD, such as the choice for nonoperative treatment options, the role of percutaneous drainage for diverticular abscesses, the role of laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis, and the role of sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for patients with perforated diverticulitis, require clinicians to attentively follow and participate in these discussions.

SUMMARY

The aim of this review article is to provide clinicians with a structured overview of the recent literature on the multidisciplinary management of complicated diverticulitis by a panel of experts on the topic. By performing an extensive literature search in the online medical databases MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase, insights into nonoperative treatment, percutaneous drainage, minimally invasive and open surgical treatment of ACD are provided. Furthermore, a comprehensive algorithm for the treatment of ACD has been developed.

KEY MESSAGES

Accurate patient evaluation and selection based on patient and disease characteristics is of paramount importance to determine the appropriate treatment strategy for patients with complicated diverticulitis. The presence of an experienced surgeon with advanced skills in laparoscopic emergency colorectal surgery is crucial for the treatment of patients with perforated diverticulitis in order to properly evaluate, select and treat patients suitable for nonoperative or operative treatment with an open or laparoscopic approach.

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.

A historical review of surgery for peritonitis secondary to acute colonic diverticulitis: from Lockhart-Mummery to evidence-based medicine

The management of patients with colonic diverticular perforation is still evolving. Initial lavage with or without simple suture and drainage was suggested in the late 19th century, replaced progressively by the three-stage Mayo Clinic or the two-stage Mickulicz procedures. Fears of inadequate source control prompted the implementation of the resection of the affected segment of colon with formation of a colostomy (Hartman procedure) in the 1970’s. Ensuing development of the treatment strategies was driven by the recognition of the high morbidity and mortality and low reversal rates associated with the Hartman procedure. This led to the wider use of resection and primary anastomosis during the 1990’s.

The technique of lavage and drainage regained popularity during the 1990’s. This procedure can also be performed laparoscopically with the advantage of faster recovery and shorter hospital stay. This strategy allows resectional surgery to be postponed or avoided altogether in many patients; and higher rates of primary resection and anastomosis can be achieved avoiding the need for a stoma. The three recent randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic peritoneal lavage alone to resectional surgery reported inconsistent outcomes.

The aim of this review is to review the historical evolution and future reflections of surgical treatment modalities for diffuse purulent and feculent peritonitis. In this review we classified the various surgical strategies according to Krukowski et al. and Vermeulen et al. and reviewed the literature related to surgical treatment separately for each period.

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 lavage versus resection in perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Purulent peritonitis from acute left colon diverticulitis is a relatively common presentation of diverticular disease; historically the treatment was the Hartmann procedure. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage has been proposed as a lesser invasive treatment option with great interest and debate among surgeons and with contrasting results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the results of sigmoid resection with laparoscopic lavage.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to select randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic lavage versus resection in Hinchey III diverticulitis. Studies' selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were done by two independent authors; results were shown as OR with 95 % C.I.

RESULTS

Three RCT were selected for the meta-analysis including 315 patents. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with significantly more reoperations (OR 3.75, p = 0.006) and more intra-abdominal abscesses (OR 3.50, p = 0.0003) with no differences in mortality (OR 0.93, p = 0.92). At 12 months follow up laparoscopic lavage was associated with lesser reoperations (OR 0.32, p = 0.0004); there were no differences in term of stoma presence (OR 0.44 p = 0.27) and mortality (OR 0.74 p = 0.51).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis shows that in acute perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis laparoscopic lavage is comparable to sigmoid resection in term of mortality but it is associated with a significantly higher rate of reoperations and a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess. No differences in term of mortality were demonstrated at follow-up. Further studies are needed to better define the safety and appropriateness of this treatment.

Emergency Surgery for Acute Complicated Diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment of acute complicated diverticulitis is a matter of debate and has undergone significant changes. Currently, the main focus of surgical treatment concepts is on controlling the emergency situation triggered by acute complicated sigmoid diverticulitis through interventional and minimally invasive measures.

METHODS

This article presents the current data and recommendations on differentiated treatment of acute complicated sigmoid diverticulitis, which are also summarized in a decision tree.

RESULTS

In general, resection of the diverticular sigmoid is needed to treat acute complicated sigmoid diverticulitis, because without resection the recurrence rate is too high at 40%. Since the morbidity and mortality rates associated with emergency resection are extremely high, resulting in the creation of a stoma, efforts are made to control the acute situation through interventional and laparoscopic measures. Therefore, pericolic and pelvic abscesses (Hinchey stages I, II) are eliminated through percutaneous or laparoscopic drainage. Likewise, laparoscopic lavage and drainage are performed for purulent and feculent peritonitis (Hinchey stages III, IV). After elimination of the acute septic situation, interval elective sigmoid resection is conducted. If emergency resection cannot be avoided, it is performed, while taking account of the patient's overall condition, with primary anastomosis and a protective stoma or as discontinuity resection using Hartmann's procedure.

CONCLUSION

Thanks to the progress made in interventional and laparoscopic treatment, differentiated concepts are now used to treat acute complicated sigmoid diverticulitis.

Massive Liver Trauma-Multidisciplinary Approach and Minimal Invasive Surgery can Salvage Patients

Management of massive liver trauma (grades IV-VI) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. It can pose serious challenges to treating physician and requires multimodality interventions. For a successful outcome, timing of intervention is crucial. We report a case of grade V hepatic injury treated successfully with angioembolization, laparoscopic lavage, and endoscopic stenting during a time period from admission to discharge on the 24th day. Angioembolization was performed at admission after resuscitation as CT scan showed active extravasation in the arterial phase. Laparoscopic lavage and drainage was performed on the fifth day as abdominal inflammatory response failed to respond to medical management. There was biliary component of abdominal fluid noticed during laparoscopy, which manifested by postoperative localized biliary fistula; hence endoscopic stenting of the bile duct was performed on the seventh day. The patient recovered well with timely minimal invasive approach and was fine at 1 year follow-up.