Two-stage laparoscopic management of generalized peritonitis due to perforated sigmoid diverticula: eighteen cases

Evaluation of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for perforated diverticulitis: a national registry-based study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic lavage (LPL) has been suggested for treatment of non-feculent perforated diverticulitis. In this observational study, the surgical treatment of diverticular disease in Sweden outside prospective trials was investigated.

METHODS

This population-based study used the National Patient Register to identify all patients in Sweden with emergency admissions for diverticular disease, as defined by ICD codes from July 2014 to December 2020. Demographics, surgical procedures and outcomes were assessed. In addition, register data since 1997 were retrieved to assess co-morbidities, previous abdominal surgeries, and previous admissions for diverticular disease.

RESULTS

Among 47 294 patients with emergency hospital admission, 2035 underwent LPL (427 patients) or sigmoid resection (SR, 1608 patients) for diverticular disease. The mean follow-up was 30.8 months. Patients selected for LPL were younger, healthier and with less previous abdominal surgery for diverticular disease than those in the SR group (P < 0.01). LPL was associated with shorter postoperative hospital stay (mean 9.4 versus 14.9 days, P < 0.001) and lower 30-day mortality (3.5% versus 8.7%, P < 0.001). Diverticular disease-associated subsequent surgery was more common in the SR group than the LPL group except during the first year (P < 0.001). LPL had a lower mortality rate during the study period (stratified HR 0.70, 95% c.i. 0.53-0.92, P = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic lavage constitutes a safe alternative to sigmoid resection for selected patients judged clinically to require surgery.

Laparoscopic Lavage in the Management of Hinchey III/IV Diverticulitis

Diverticulitis manifestations may cover a spectrum of mild local inflammation to diffuse feculent peritonitis. Up to 35% of patients presenting with diverticulitis will have purulent (Hinchey grade III) or feculent (Hinchey grade IV) contamination of the abdomen, with a high-associated morbidity and mortality. Surgical management may involve segmental resection with or without restoration of bowel continuity. However, emergency resection for diverticulitis can be associated with high mortality rates, as well as low stoma reversal rates at 1 year. Therefore, laparoscopic peritoneal lavage has been proposed for use in selected patients with purulent peritonitis. The topic of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for the treatment of perforated diverticulitis in the literature has been controversial. Our review of the recent data show that laparoscopic lavage may be safe and feasible in select patients with similar rates of mortality and major morbidity. There is, however, a concern regarding an associated higher rate of postoperative abscess and early reintervention risk.

The role of emergency laparoscopic surgery for complicated diverticular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery develops rapidly in both elective and emergency settings. The study aimed to determine the role of different laparoscopic methods for the emergency treatment of complicated diverticulitis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane database were searched up to November 2019 to identify all published articles related to the topic. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 15.

RESULTS

Fourteen publications were included in the analysis. Laparoscopic surgery was applied in 425 patients, and 493 patients underwent open colon resection (OCR). Postoperative mortality, morbidity, severe complications, and reoperation rates were not significantly different between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the different laparoscopic methods (laparoscopic colon resection [LCR] and laparoscopic lavage and drainage [LLD]). Subgroup analysis indicated that LCR was superior to OCR in terms of morbidity, while OCR was superior to LLD in terms of severe complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety of laparoscopic surgery for the emergency treatment of complicated diverticulitis is related to different surgical methods. LCR is suggested to be a better choice according to the postoperative outcomes. More definite conclusions can be drawn in future randomized controlled trials.

Preliminary Experience with Laparoscopic Peritoneal Lavage for Complicated Diverticulitis: A New Algorithm for Treatment?

Patients with findings suggestive of a perforated diverticulitis may be subject to colostomy with the attendant morbidity and quality-of-life concerns. Recent literature demonstrates decreased use of laparotomy and colostomy when diagnostic laparoscopy reveals absence of fecal peritonitis. Ten patients presenting with diverticulitis between May 2009 and February 2012 underwent diagnostic laparoscopy. The indication for surgery in nine patients was failure of medical management with or without percutaneous drainage and one had significant pneumoperitoneum at presentation. A comprehensive algorithm was subsequently developed governing medical and surgical management of diverticulitis including the use of diagnostic laparoscopy and laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for patients with Hinchey Stage 3 diverticulitis or abscess formation not amenable to percutaneous drainage. Eight patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy and laparoscopic peritoneal lavage, whereas two patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy with conversion to open procedures (low-anterior resection with diverting ileostomy and Hartmann's procedure). Mortality was 0 per cent. Four patients were subsequently readmitted for relapse or recurrence. Two required laparotomy at the time of readmission, ultimately receiving a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma. Two were managed medically and later underwent elective laparoscopic sigmoid colon resection. Diagnostic laparoscopy and laparoscopy peritoneal lavage appear feasible and safe and may be an alternative to more invasive surgery, avoiding laparotomy and colostomy and staging patients for elective laparoscopic resection. Based on our institutional experience, we propose a novel algorithm for the treatment of hospitalized patients with diverticulitis, which incorporates diagnostic laparoscopy and laparoscopic peritoneal lavage while emphasizing patient selection based on clinical examination and imaging.

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.

Three-stage laparoscopic surgery in a morbidly obese patient with Hinchey III diverticulitis: a case report

Background

Perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis (Hinchey III diverticulitis) has traditionally been treated with a Hartmann’s procedure in order to avoid the considerable postoperative morbidity and mortality associated with one-stage resection and primary anastomosis. Although there have been reports regarding laparoscopic lavage as the initial treatment of perforated Hinchey III diverticulitis, a formal treatment strategy has not been established yet. We performed a three-stage surgery, including laparoscopic lavage and drainage with diverting ileostomy (first stage), laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (second stage), and ileostomy closure (third stage) in a morbidly obese patient with Hinchey III diverticulitis.

Case presentation

A 31-year-old man who presented with abdominal pain was diagnosed with perforated diverticulitis and sent to our hospital for evaluation. He had morbid obesity (body mass index (BMI) 50 kg/m²), acute renal failure, and uncontrolled diabetes. We performed an emergency operation including laparoscopic lavage and drainage with a diverting ileostomy for this case of Hinchey III diverticulitis. Fifteen months after the first-stage surgery, we performed laparoscopic sigmoidectomy as the second stage. Finally, 5 months later, we performed ileostomy closure. The patient recovered without significant complications.

Conclusion

Three-stage surgery including early laparoscopic lavage and proximal diversion for morbidly obese, comorbid patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis may be indicated in the acute phase to avoid perioperative complications and permanent colostomy creation.

Laparoscopic approaches to complicated diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this article is to review the evolving role of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of complicated diverticulitis.

PURPOSE

The authors attempted to give readers a concise insight into the evidence available in the English language literature. This study does not offer a systematic review of the topic, rather it highlights the role of laparoscopy in the treatment of complicated diverticulitis.

CONCLUSIONS

New level 1 evidence suggest that observation rather than elective resection following nonoperative management of diverticulitis with abscess and/or extraluminal air is not below the standard of care. Implementation of nonoperative management may result in increased prevalence of sigmoid strictures.

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.

Acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis: clinical expressions, therapeutic insights, and role of computed tomography

The diagnostic approach of patients with suspected acute diverticulitis remains debated. On the one hand, a scoring system with the best predictive value in diagnosing acute diverticulitis has been developed in order to reduce the use of computed tomography (CT) scan, while, on the other hand, patients with a high probability of acute diverticulitis should benefit from CT scan from a clinical viewpoint, ensuring that they will receive the most appropriate treatment. The place and classification of CT scan for acute diverticulitis need to be reassessed. If the management of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis, abscess, and fecal peritonitis is now well codified, urgent surgical or medical treatment of hemodynamically stable patients presenting with intraperitoneal air or fluid without uncontrolled sepsis is still under discussion. Furthermore, the indications for laparoscopic lavage are not yet well established. It is known for years that episode(s) of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis may induce painful recurrent bowel symptoms, known as symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease and irritable bowel syndrome-like diverticular disease. These two clinical expressions of diverticular disease, that may darken quality of life, are treated medically aimed at symptom relief. The possible place of surgery should be discussed. Clinical and CT scan classifications should be separated entities.

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage: a definitive treatment for diverticular peritonitis or a "bridge" to elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy?: a systematic review

To this day, the treatment of generalized peritonitis secondary to diverticular perforation is still controversial. Recently, in patients with acute sigmoid diverticulitis, laparoscopic lavage and drainage has gained a wide interest as an alternative to resection. Based on this backdrop, we decided to perform a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of peritoneal lavage in perforated diverticular disease.A bibliographic search was performed in PubMed for case series and comparative studies published between January 1992 and February 2014 describing laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in patients with perforated diverticulitis.A total of 19 articles consisting of 10 cohort studies, 8 case series, and 1 controlled clinical trial met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. In total these studies analyzed data from 871 patients. The mean follow-up time ranged from 1.5 to 96 months when reported. In 11 studies, the success rate of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage, defined as patients alive without surgical treatment for a recurrent episode of diverticulitis, was 24.3%. In patients with Hinchey stage III diverticulitis, the incidence of laparotomy conversion was 1%, whereas in patients with stage IV it was 45%. The 30-day postoperative mortality rate was 2.9%. The 30-day postoperative reintervention rate was 4.9%, whereas 2% of patients required a percutaneous drainage. Readmission rate after the first hospitalization for recurrent diverticulitis was 6%. Most patients who were readmitted (69%) required redo surgery. A 2-stage laparoscopic intervention was performed in 18.3% of patients.Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage should be considered an effective and safe option for the treatment of patients with sigmoid diverticulitis with Hinchey stage III peritonitis; it can also be consider as a "bridge" surgical step combined with a delayed and elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy in order to avoid a Hartmann procedure. This minimally invasive staged approach should be considered for patients without systemic toxicity and in centers experienced in minimally invasive surgery techniques. Further evidence is needed, and the ongoing RCTs will better define the role of the laparoscopic peritoneal lavage/drainage in the treatment of patients with complicated diverticulitis.

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for perforated colonic diverticulitis: a definitive treatment? Retrospective analysis of 63 cases

BACKGROUND

The ideal treatment of perforated diverticulitis and the indications for elective colon resection remain controversial. Considering the significant morbidity and mortality rates related to traditional resection, efforts have been made to reduce the invasiveness of surgery in recent decades. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage has emerged as an effective alternative option. We retrospectively investigated the effectiveness of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for perforated diverticulitis and the possibility that it could be a definitive treatment.

METHODS

We included patients treated with laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for perforated diverticulitis. The inclusion criteria were all emergency patients with generalized peritonitis due to Hinchey III perforated diverticulitis and some cases of Hinchey II and IV.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients were treated with laparoscopic peritoneal lavage. Six patients (9.5 %) had Hinchey II diverticulitis; 54 patients (85.7 %) had Hinchey III; and three patients (4.8 %) had Hinchey IV. The mean operative time was 87.3 min (±25.4 min), and the overall morbidity rate was 14.3 %. One patient died because of pulmonary embolism, and there were six early reinterventions because of treatment failure. Delayed colon resection was performed in four of the remaining 57 patients (7 %) because of recurrent diverticulitis. In the other 53 patients (93 %), we saw no recurrence of diverticulitis and no intervention was performed after a median follow-up period of 54 months (interquartile range 27-98 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for perforated diverticulitis can be considered a safe and effective alternative to traditional surgical resection, and using this approach, most elective colon resection might be avoided.

Management of acute diverticulitis and its complications

Colonic diverticular disease is a common condition, and around a quarter of people affected by it will experience acute symptoms at some time. The most common presentation is uncomplicated acute diverticulitis that can be managed conservatively with bowel rest and antibiotics. However, some patients will present with diverticular abscesses or purulent or faeculent peritonitis due to perforated diverticular disease. Whilst most mesocolic abscesses can be managed with percutaneous drainage alone, pelvic abscesses are associated with a higher rate of future complications and usually require percutaneous drainage followed by interval sigmoid resection. Patients who require emergency surgery for complicated acute diverticulitis most commonly undergo a Hartmann's procedure, although resection with primary anastomosis and laparoscopic peritoneal lavage have emerged as alternative treatment options for patients with purulent peritonitis in recent years. However, robust evidence from randomized trials is lacking for these alternative procedures, and the studies that have reported good outcomes from them have included carefully selected patient groups. There has been a move away from recommending elective prophylactic colectomy after two episodes of acute diverticulitis in the light of evidence that most patients will not experience a significant recurrence of their symptoms; elective surgery is indicated for those with ongoing symptoms, pelvic abscesses, complications-such as fistulating disease, strictures or recurrent diverticular bleeding-and those who are at high risk of perforation during future episodes, for example, due to immunosuppression, chronic renal failure or collagen-vascular diseases.

Laparoscopic approach to acute abdomen from the Consensus Development Conference of the Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e nuove tecnologie (SICE), Associazione Chirurghi Ospedalieri Italiani (ACOI), Società Italiana di Chirurgia (SIC), Società Italiana di Chirurgia d'Urgenza e del Trauma (SICUT), Società Italiana di Chirurgia nell'Ospedalità Privata (SICOP), and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

BACKGROUND

In January 2010, the SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery), under the auspices of the EAES, decided to revisit the clinical recommendations for the role of laparoscopy in abdominal emergencies in adults, with the primary intent being to update the 2006 EAES indications and supplement the existing guidelines on specific diseases.

METHODS

Other Italian surgical societies were invited into the Consensus to form a panel of 12 expert surgeons. In order to get a multidisciplinary panel, other stakeholders involved in abdominal emergencies were invited along with a patient's association. In November 2010, the panel met in Rome to discuss each chapter according to the Delphi method, producing key statements with a grade of recommendations followed by commentary to explain the rationale and the level of evidence behind the statements. Thereafter, the statements were presented to the Annual Congress of the EAES in June 2011.

RESULTS

A thorough literature review was necessary to assess whether the recommendations issued in 2006 are still current. In many cases new studies allowed us to better clarify some issues (such as for diverticulitis, small bowel obstruction, pancreatitis, hernias, trauma), to confirm the key role of laparoscopy (such as for cholecystitis, gynecological disorders, nonspecific abdominal pain, appendicitis), but occasionally previous strong recommendations have to be challenged after review of recent research (such as for perforated peptic ulcer).

CONCLUSIONS

Every surgeon has to develop his or her own approach, taking into account the clinical situation, her/his proficiency (and the experience of the team) with the various techniques, and the specific organizational setting in which she/he is working. This guideline has been developed bearing in mind that every surgeon could use the data reported to support her/his judgment.

Damage control strategy for the management of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis: laparoscopic lavage and drainage vs. laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and drainage (LLD) with laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure (LHP) in the management of perforated diverticulitis and to investigate a safer and more effective laparoscopic method for managing acute perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis.

METHODS

A consecutive series of patients who underwent emergent LHP or LLD for perforated diverticulitis were identified from a prospectively designed database. All procedure-related information was collected and analyzed. P < 5 % was considered statistically significant in this study.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients underwent emergent laparoscopic procedures (47 LLD and 41 LHP) between 1995 and 2010 for acute perforated diverticulitis. Diagnostic laparoscopy classified 74 (84.1 %) patients as Hinchey III or IV perforated diverticulitis. OT for LHP was 182 ± 54.7 min, and EBL was 210 ± 170.5 ml. Six LHP (14.6 %) were converted to open Hartmann's for various reasons. Moreover the rates of LHP-associated postoperative mortality and morbidity were 2.4 and 17.1 %, respectively. For LLD, the operating time was 99.7 ± 39.8 min, and blood loss was 34.4 ± 21.2 ml. Three patients (6.4 %) were reoperated for the worsening of septic symptoms during post-LLD course. Moreover, the patients with LHP had significantly longer hospital stay than the ones with LLD did (16.3 ± 10.1 vs. 6.7 ± 2.2 days, P < 0.01). In the long-term follow-up, the rate of colostomy closure for LHP is 72.2 %, and 21 of 47 patients who underwent LLD had elective sigmoidectomy for the source control with the rate of 44.7 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LHP and LLD can be performed safely and effectively for managing severe diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis. Compared with LHP, LLD does not remove the pathogenic source; however, the clinical application of this damage control operation to our patients showed significantly better short- and long-term clinical outcomes for managing perforated diverticulitis with various Hinchey classifications.

Treatment of acute diverticulitis laparoscopic lavage vs. resection (DILALA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Perforated diverticulitis is a condition associated with substantial morbidity. Recently published reports suggest that laparoscopic lavage has fewer complications and shorter hospital stay. So far no randomised study has published any results.

Methods

DILALA is a Scandinavian, randomised trial, comparing laparoscopic lavage (LL) to the traditional Hartmann's Procedure (HP). Primary endpoint is the number of re-operations within 12 months. Secondary endpoints consist of mortality, quality of life (QoL), re-admission, health economy assessment and permanent stoma. Patients are included when surgery is required. A laparoscopy is performed and if Hinchey grade III is diagnosed the patient is included and randomised 1:1, to either LL or HP. Patients undergoing LL receive > 3L of saline intraperitoneally, placement of pelvic drain and continued antibiotics. Follow-up is scheduled 6-12 weeks, 6 months and 12 months. A QoL-form is filled out on discharge, 6- and 12 months. Inclusion is set to 80 patients (40+40).

Discussion

HP is associated with a high rate of complication. Not only does the primary operation entail complications, but also subsequent surgery is associated with a high morbidity. Thus the combined risk of treatment for the patient is high. The aim of the DILALA trial is to evaluate if laparoscopic lavage is a safe, minimally invasive method for patients with perforated diverticulitis Hinchey grade III, resulting in fewer re-operations, decreased morbidity, mortality, costs and increased quality of life.

Trial registration

British registry (ISRCTN) for clinical trials ISRCTN82208287http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN82208287

Application of a Tertiary Referral Scoring System to Predict Nonreversal of Hartmann's Procedure for Diverticulitis in a Community Hospital

Riansuwan et al. at Cleveland Clinic developed a scoring system to quantify the risk of Hartmann's nonreversal based on age, preoperative transfusion, pulmonary comorbidity, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, perforation, and anticoagulation. Our study validates the scoring system in a community hospital setting. Patients undergoing Hartmann's procedure for diverticulitis (2006 to June 2009) were identified from our hospital's database. Two groups were formed based on Hartmann's reversal within 1 year and those with nonreversal. An independent-sample t test and logistic regression using score and nine other variables as predictors of Hartmann's non-reversal were run. Sixty-three of 93 patients (67.7%) had a Hartmann's reversal. Higher scores and higher mean age were seen in the nonreversal group (15.5 ± 3.0 vs 12.1 ± 2.5 and 73 ± 15 vs 63 ± 14 years, respectively). Patients with scores 18 or above were not reversed; 43 of 49 patients (88%) with scores of 13 or less were reversed. Logistic regression confirmed that the only predictive variable for nonreversal is a higher score. The scoring system is predictive of nonreversibility of Hartmann's procedure for acute diverticulitis. This will be useful in allowing surgeons to strategize accurately and to counsel patients realistically. Higher scores may allow both the surgeon and patient to have a low threshold for exploring alternatives to Hartmann's procedure.

Treatment of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis: past, present, and future

BACKGROUND

The supposed optimal treatment of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis has changed several times during the last century, but at present is still unclear.

METHODS/RESULTS

The first cases of complicated perforated diverticulitis of the colon were reported in the beginning of the twentieth century. At that time the first therapeutic guidelines were postulated in which an initial nonresectional procedure was provided to be the safest plan of management. After many years in which resection had become standard practice, today, one century later, again (laparoscopic) nonresectional surgery is presented as a safe and promising alternative in treatment of complicated perforated diverticulitis. The question rises what had happened to close the circle?

CONCLUSIONS

This paper includes a historic summary of changing patterns in surgical strategies in perforated diverticulitis complicated by generalized peritonitis.

The ladies trial: laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or resection for purulent peritonitis and Hartmann's procedure or resection with primary anastomosis for purulent or faecal peritonitis in perforated diverticulitis (NTR2037)

BACKGROUND

Recently, excellent results are reported on laparoscopic lavage in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis as an alternative for sigmoidectomy and ostomy.The objective of this study is to determine whether LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage is a safe and effective treatment for patients with purulent peritonitis (LOLA-arm) and to determine the optimal resectional strategy in patients with a purulent or faecal peritonitis (DIVA-arm: perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoidresection with or without Anastomosis).

METHODS/DESIGN

In this multicentre randomised trial all patients with perforated diverticulitis are included. Upon laparoscopy, patients with purulent peritonitis are treated with laparoscopic lavage and drainage, Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis in a ratio of 2:1:1 (LOLA-arm). Patients with faecal peritonitis will be randomised 1:1 between Hartmann's procedure and resection with primary anastomosis (DIVA-arm). The primary combined endpoint of the LOLA-arm is major morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 132:66:66 patients will be able to detect a difference in the primary endpoint from 25% in resectional groups compared to 10% in the laparoscopic lavage group (two sided alpha = 5%, power = 90%). Endpoint of the DIVA-arm is stoma free survival one year after initial surgery. In this arm 212 patients are needed to significantly demonstrate a difference of 30% (log rank test two sided alpha = 5% and power = 90%) in favour of the patients with resection with primary anastomosis. Secondary endpoints for both arms are the number of days alive and outside the hospital, health related quality of life, health care utilisation and associated costs.

DISCUSSION

The Ladies trial is a nationwide multicentre randomised trial on perforated diverticulitis that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic lavage and drainage for purulent generalised peritonitis and on the optimal resectional strategy for both purulent and faecal generalised peritonitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Nederlands Trial Register NTR2037.

Current indications and role of surgery in the management of sigmoid diverticulitis

Sigmoid diverticulitis is a common disease which carries both a significant morbidity and a societal economic burden. This review article analyzes the current data regarding management of sigmoid diverticulitis in its variable clinical presentations. Wide-spectrum antibiotics are the standard of care for uncomplicated diverticulitis. Recently published data indicate that sigmoid diverticulitis does not mandate surgical management after the second episode of uncomplicated disease as previously recommended. Rather, a more individualized approach, taking into account frequency, severity of the attacks and their impact on quality of life, should guide the indication for surgery. On the other hand, complicated diverticular disease still requires surgical treatment in patients with acceptable comorbidity risk and remains a life-threatening condition in the case of free peritoneal perforation. Laparoscopic surgery is increasingly accepted as the surgical approach of choice for most presentations of the disease and has also been proposed in the treatment of generalized peritonitis. There is not sufficient evidence supporting any changes in the approach to management in younger patients. Conversely, the available evidence suggests that surgery should be indicated after one attack of uncomplicated disease in immunocompromised individuals. Uncommon clinical presentations of sigmoid diverticulitis and their possible association with inflammatory bowel disease are also discussed.

Emergency management of diverticulitis

The most common indications for emergency operative intervention in the treatment of sigmoid diverticulitis are peritonitis and failure of medical therapy. Primary resection and diversion (Hartmann's procedure) followed by delayed colostomy closure is the current standard of emergency surgical care. Guidelines for best operative strategy, however, remain controversial and continue to evolve based on recent comparative reviews of surgical outcomes. Primary resection and anastomosis with or without proximal diversion and laparoscopic lavage are alternatives to Hartmann's procedure that may provide an improved outcome in properly selected patients. Ongoing changes in the historical paradigm of the surgical approach to this disease mandate the need for large multicentered prospective randomized trials to determine the best surgical strategy under emergent conditions for the treatment of diverticulitis. The current literature is reviewed with suggestions for a management algorithm.

Benefits of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for complicated sigmoid diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

The traditional therapy for perforated sigmoid diverticulitis with peritonitis is emergency colectomy usually with colostomy. We report laparoscopic exploration with peritoneal lavage as an alternative in seven patients who required emergency surgery for diverticulitis.

METHODS

Six patients presented with diffuse peritonitis and one with a failure of percutaneous therapy. All patients were explored laparoscopically and the peritoneal cavity was lavaged with saline in addition to receiving intravenous antibiotics. Patient demographics, clinical response, length of stay, and complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Six patients had resolution of peritonitis resolved and patients were discharged from the hospital. One of these patients who developed a pelvic abscess required a percutaneous drainage postoperatively. This patient ultimately returned 3 months later with recurrent symptoms and underwent colectomy with primary anastomosis. One patient failed to improve initially and underwent colectomy with primary anastomosis on the same admission. Five patients subsequently had elective sigmoid resections, four laparoscopic and one open. Mean length of stay was 7.7 days. There was no mortality.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that laparoscopic exploration and peritoneal lavage can be performed safely in patients with diffuse, purulent peritonitis. Using this approach, most patients with purulent peritonitis can avoid emergent laparotomy with the risk of colostomy, and the need for a second surgery.

A simple technique of inserting an intra-abdominal drain in laparoscopic surgery

OBJECTIVES

We describe a simple technique for introducing any size of intra-abdominal drain in laparoscopy through a 3-5 mm port site without any of the drawbacks of other techniques practiced.

METHODS

Setting is usually of a conventional laparoscopic surgery with various ports positioned depending on the procedure performed. At the end of theprocedure a 5 mm port site cannula is usually chosen to 'pull in' an intra-abdominal drain by railroading, under vision.

RESULTS

Railroading method of insertion of intra-abdominal drain in laparoscopy is always successful with no failure rate and no associated complications.

CONCLUSION

When indicated, this is the simplest method of inserting an intra-abdominal drain after laparoscopic surgery.

Long-term experience with the laparoscopic approach to perforated diverticulitis plus generalized peritonitis

BACKGROUND

The treatment of perforated diverticulitis is changing form the current standard of laparotomy with resection, Hartmann procedure, and colostomy to a minimally invasive technique. In patients with complicated acute diverticulitis and peritonitis without gross fecal contamination, laparoscopic peritoneal lavage, inspection of the colon, and intraoperative drain placement of the peritoneal cavity appears to alleviate morbidity and improve the outcome. In this article, we report our experience of a laparoscopic peritoneal lavage technique with delayed definitive resection when necessary.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Records of patients who underwent intraoperative peritoneal lavage for purulent diverticulitis at the Texas Endosurgery Institute from April 1991 to September 2006 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Forty patients were included in the study, with a male/female ratio of 26:14. The average age was 60 years. Many had associated co-morbidities. The average operating time was 62 minutes. There were no conversions to an open procedure. Apart from mild postoperative paralytic ileus in six patients and chest infections in two, there were no significant peroperative or postoperative complications. Just over 50% underwent elective interval laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy. During the mean follow-up of 96 months, none of the other patients required further surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic lavage of the peritoneal cavity and drainage is a safe alternative to the current standard of treatment for the management of perforated diverticulitis with or without gross fecal contamination. It is associated with a decrease in the overall cost of treatment; the use of a colostomy is avoided; patient improvement is immediate; and there is a reduction in mortality and morbidity as definitive laparoscopic resection can be performed in a nonemergent fashion. Perhaps the most important benefit, other than avoiding a colostomy, is the association of fewer wound complications such as dehiscence, wound infection, and the high risk of hernia formation. Laparoscopic lavage and drainage should be considered in all patients in whom medical and/or percutaneous treatment is not feasible. It carries minimal morbidity and should be considered the standard of care.

Laparoscopic two-stage left colonic resection for patients with peritonitis caused by acute diverticulitis

PURPOSE

Purulent or fecal peritonitis is one of the most serious complications of acute diverticulitis. Up to one-fourth of patients hospitalized for acute diverticulitis require an emergent operation for a complication, including abscess, peritonitis, or stenosis. Open Hartmann's procedure has been the operation of choice for these patients. The advantages of laparoscopy could be combined with those of the primary resection in selected patients with peritonitis complicating acute diverticulitis. However, because of technical difficulties and the theoretic risk of poorly controlled sepsis, laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure has been seldom reported for such patients.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected from 2003 to 2005 in a single referral center specialized in abdominal emergencies. Laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure (Stage 1) was performed in selected patients with peritonitis complicating acute diverticulitis. Secondarily, Hartmann's reversal (Stage 2) also was performed laparoscopically.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients were studied. The median Mannheim Peritonitis Index score was 21 (+/-5; range, 12-32). The conversion rate was 19 and 11 percent for Stage 1 and Stage 2, respectively. There was no perioperative uncontrolled sepsis. Overall operative 30-day mortality and morbidity rates were 3 and 23 percent for Stage 1, and 0 and 15 percent for Stage 2, respectively. Stoma reversal was possible in 90 percent of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this small series demonstrated that the indications of laparoscopy in diverticulitis could be extrapolated to selected patients with peritonitis. The technical feasibility and safety of laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure in selected patients seem acceptable. However, larger-scale, controlled studies are needed to define more accurately the role of laparoscopy in complicated diverticulitis.

Direct visualization of perforation sites in patients with a non-traumatic free pneumoperitoneum: added diagnostic value of thin transverse slices and coronal and sagittal reformations for multi-detector CT

The incremental diagnostic value of adding 1.25-mm slices and coronal and sagittal reformatting to 5-mm axial reconstructions for direct visualization of the perforation site in patients with non-traumatic free pneumoperitoneum was assessed. Forty patients with non-traumatic bowel perforation and free pneumoperitoneum underwent computed tomography (CT). The perforation was gastroduodenal in 18 patients and involved the small or large bowel in 22 patients. Transverse scans were reconstructed with 5-mm thick sections at 5-mm intervals and 1.25-mm-thick sections at 1.25-mm intervals. The second data set was reformatted coronally and sagittaly with 3-mm-thick sections at 3-mm intervals. Three independent blinded readers interpreted 5-mm transverse scans, then combined 1.25-mm and 5-mm-transverse scans, and then combined transverse, coronal and sagittal scans. The rate of identification of the perforation site ranged from 43% to 53% with the combined axial, sagittal and coronal scans, from 28% to 48% with the 1.25- and 5-mm transverse scans, and from 5% to 20% only with the 5-mm thick transverse scans. The agreement between readers was significantly higher with thin slices and reformatting. The use of 1.25-mm axial slices and reformations intrinsically contained more useful diagnostic information than 5-mm axial slices alone for diagnosis of the perforation site in patients with pneumoperitoneum.

Perforated diverticulitis managed by laparoscopic lavage

BACKGROUND

Traditionally the management of acute diverticulitis complicated by perforation has been the Hartmann's procedure, which may be associated with significant morbidity and mortality and the unpleasantness of a colostomy. We present our early experience in managing perforated diverticulitis acutely by laparoscopic lavage and drainage.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients with surgically confirmed perforated diverticulitis. Details concerning the nature of presentation, operative findings, postoperative course and medium-term progress were investigated.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients with a mean age of 57.2 years were identified over a 3-year period. All patients presented with peritonitis and systemic sepsis. Ten patients had extraluminal gas on preoperative imaging. Laparoscopic lavage and drainage, without resection or stoma, was the initial management in all cases. Sigmoid diverticulitis was confirmed in all cases, complicated by Hinchey grade 3 purulent peritonitis in 10 patients, grade 2 contamination in 2 patients and grade 4 faeculent peritonitis in 2 patients. Eleven patients (79%) improved and were discharged following a median of 6.5 days (range, 5-32 days). Three patients did not improve and underwent acute resection. Eight patients have subsequently undergone elective resection without a stoma at a mean interval of 6 weeks, which was carried out laparoscopically in all but one case.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic lavage and drainage in the acute management of perforated acute diverticulitis may be a promising alternative to more radical procedures, including the Hartmann's procedure. Acute resection should still be carried out in patients found to have faecal peritonitis or who fail to improve following lavage.

Abdominal emergencies: diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has been practiced in the management of emergencies resulting from inflammatory conditions, lumenal obstruction, perforation, vascular occlusion, and trauma. This article identifies and discusses controversial areas in the field, in particular surrounding the efficacy, cost effectiveness, and perceived advantages of laparoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with acute abdominal conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Review and commentary on pertinent articles in the English language literature are presented.

RESULTS

Prospective randomized trials have been reported in the treatment of some disorders, but a lack of recommendations that are evidence-based has hindered more widespread usage of laparoscopy in an emergency setting. In addition, concerns have been raised that the creation of capnoperitoneum in the patient with established peritonitis may be detrimental with respect to potentiation of bacteremia and severe sepsis, and experimental studies have yielded conflicting data in this regard.

CONCLUSION

As such issues are resolved, utilization of laparoscopy is likely to increase substantially as expertise is acquired. A minimal-access approach carries less morbidity and may offer other practical advantages in terms of surgical technique and application. When surgical intervention is appropriate, laparoscopy is now preferred for acute biliary disease. Female patients of reproductive age with acute appendicitis may benefit, particularly if there is preoperative diagnostic uncertainty. Selected cases of intestinal obstruction and visceral perforation presenting soon after symptom onset and in whom shock is absent may also be amenable to laparoscopic repair. Its use in the treatment of most trauma patients and patients with generalized peritonitis or hemodynamic instability is not recommended at present.

Emergency laparoscopy--current best practice

Emergency laparoscopic surgery allows both the evaluation of acute abdominal pain and the treatment of many common acute abdominal disorders. This review critically evaluates the current evidence base for the use of laparoscopy, both diagnostic and interventional, in the emergency abdomen, and provides guidance for surgeons as to current best practise. Laparoscopic surgery is firmly established as the best intervention in acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis and most gynaecological emergencies but requires further randomised controlled trials to definitively establish its role in other conditions.

Two-stage totally minimally invasive approach for acute complicated diverticulitis

OBJECTIVES

Surgical options for acute diverticulitis with peritonitis include Hartmann's procedure or resection and primary anastomosis with or without a stoma. Initial laparoscopic lavage and drainage can control the acute intra-abdominal sepsis to allow for a delayed definitive procedure in nonemergency conditions. Potential advantages include the avoidance of a laparotomy, stoma and local infections at the origin of dehiscence and incisional hernias. We evaluated this approach in a selected group of patients.

METHODS

Patients with intra-abdominal pus secondary to diverticular perforation requiring surgery were included in the study. Patients with localized pus amenable to computerized tomography (CT)-guided drainage, faecal peritonitis, severe generalized peritonitis, and those in which the perforation was spontaneously visible were excluded. Standard demographic data, CT findings, intra-operative findings and postoperative outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

Ten patients were suitable for the approach. Mean patient age was 60.2 years. Mean body mass index was 28.2 m2/kg. Mean postoperative stay was 8.5 days and uneventful in all patients. One patient re-presented after 3 weeks with acute peritonitis requiring open sigmoidectomy. Six patients successfully underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis 2-3 months later. Two patients were not re-operated because of comorbidity and one refused surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

A two-stage totally minimally invasive approach may be a safe alternative strategy for selected cases of acute complicated diverticulitis.

Peritonitis: laparoscopic approach

Background

Laparoscopy has became as the preferred surgical approach to a number of different diseases because it allows a correct diagnosis and treatment at the same time. In abdominal emergencies, both components of treatment – exploration to identify the causative pathology and performance of an appropriate operation – can often be accomplished via laparoscopy. There is still a debate of peritonitis as a contraindication to this kind of approach. Aim of the present work is to illustrate retrospectively the results of a case-control experience of laparoscopic vs. open surgery for abdominal peritonitis emergencies carried out at our institution.

Methods

From January 1992 and January 2002 a total of 935 patients (mean age 42.3 ± 17.2 years) underwent emergent and/or urgent surgery. Among them, 602 (64.3%) were operated on laparoscopically (of whom 112 -18.7% – with peritonitis), according to the presence of a surgical team trained in laparoscopy. Patients with a history of malignancy, more than two previous major abdominal surgeries or massive bowel distension were not treated Laparoscopically. Peritonitis was not considered contraindication to Laparoscopy.

Results

The conversion rate was 23.2% in patients with peritonitis and was mainly due to the presence of dense intra-abdominal adhesions. Major complications ranged as high as 5.3% with a postoperative mortality of 1.7%. A definitive diagnosis was accomplished in 85.7% (96 pat.) of cases, and 90.6% (87) of these patients were treated successfully by Laparoscopy.

Conclusion

Even if limited by its retrospective feature, the present experience let us to consider the Laparoscopic approach to abdominal peritonitis emergencies a safe and effective as conventional surgery, with a higher diagnostic yield and allows for lesser trauma and a more rapid postoperative recovery. Such features make Laparoscopy a challenging alternative to open surgery in the management algorithm for abdominal peritonitis emergencies.

Laparoscopy for abdominal emergencies

BACKGROUND

Emergency laparoscopic exploration can be used to identify the causative pathology of acute abdominal pain. Laparoscopic surgery also allows treatment of many intraabdominal disorders. This report was prepared to describe the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared to laparotomy or nonoperative treatment.

METHODS

A panel of European experts in abdominal and gynecological surgery was assembled and participated in a consensus conference using Delphi methods. The aim was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the most common diseases that may cause acute abdominal pain.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Laparoscopic surgery was found to be clearly superior for patients with a presumable diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer, acute cholecystitis, appendicitis, or pelvic inflammatory disease. In the emergency setting, laparoscopy is of unclear or limited value if adhesive bowel obstruction, acute diverticulitis, nonbiliary pancreatitis, hernia incarceration, or mesenteric ischemia are suspected. In stable patients with acute abdominal pain, noninvasive diagnostics should be fully exhausted before considering explorative surgery. However, diagnostic laparoscopy may be useful if no diagnosis can be found by conventional diagnostics. More clinical data are needed on the use of laparoscopy after blunt or penetrating trauma of the abdomen.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to diagnostic and therapeutic advantages, laparoscopic surgery is useful for the majority of conditions underlying acute abdominal pain, but noninvasive diagnostic aids should be exhausted first. Depending on symptom severity, laparoscopy should be advocated if routine diagnostic procedures have failed to yield results.

Long-term outcome of mesocolic and pelvic diverticular abscesses of the left colon: a prospective study of 73 cases

PURPOSE

The aim of of this study was to evaluate prospectively the long-term outcome of mesocolic and pelvic diverticular abscesses of the left colon.

METHODS

Between October 1986 and October 1997, a total of 465 patients urgently admitted to our hospital with a suspected diagnosis of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis had a CT scan. Of 76 patients (17 percent) who had an associated mesocolic or pelvic abscess, 3 were lost to follow-up. The remaining 73 patients (45 with a mesocolic abscess and 28 with a pelvic abscess) were followed for a median of 43 months.

RESULTS

of the 45 patients with a mesocolic abscess, 7 (15 percent) required surgery during their first hospitalization versus 11 (39 percent) of the 28 patients with a pelvic abscess (P = 0.04). At the end of follow-up, 22 (58 percent) of the 38 patients with a mesocolic abscess who had successful conservative treatment during their first hospitalization did not need surgical treatment vs. 8 (47 percent) of the 17 who had a pelvic abscess. Altogether, 51 percent of the patients with a mesocolic abscess had surgical treatment versus 71 percent of those with a pelvic abscess (P = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the poor outcome of pelvic abscess associated with acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis, percutaneous drainage followed by secondary colectomy seems justified. Mesocolic abscess by itself is not an absolute indication for colectomy.