Role of damage control surgery in the treatment of Hinchey III and IV sigmoid diverticulitis: a tailored strategy

Damage Control Surgery and Transfer in Emergency General Surgery

Selective non traumatic emergency surgery patients are targets for damage control surgery (DCS) to prevent or treat abdominal compartment syndrome and the lethal triad. However, DCS is still a subject of controversy. As a concept, DCS describes a series of abbreviated surgical procedures to allow rapid source control of hemorrhage and contamination in patients with circulatory shock to allow resuscitation and stabilization in the intensive care unit followed by delayed return to the operating room for definitive surgical management once the patient becomes physiologic stable. If appropriately applied, the DCS morbidity and mortality can be significantly reduced.

Current Aspects on the Management of Perforated Acute Diverticulitis: A Narrative Review

Unhealthy nutritional habits and the current western lifestyle have led to an increased incidence of acute diverticulitis, which mainly affects older patients. However, the disease course in younger patients might be more severe. It has a continued increase in surgical practice, as it is the most common clinical condition encountered in the emergencies. Diagnosis and management have changed over the past decade. C-reactive protein > 170 mg/L represents the cut-off point between moderate and severe diverticulitis, and a CT scan is mandatory. It demands urgent surgical management and has high morbidity and mortality rate, especially in immunosuppressed patients, reaching up to 25%. According to the contemporary guidelines, there have been certain indications for conservative management and re-evaluation (administration of antibiotics, CT-guided drainage of the abscess, when it is > 4 cm). They include pericolic air bubbles or a small amount of fluid, absence of abscess within a distance of 5 cm from the affected bowel or abscess ≤4 cm. In other cases, Hartmann's sigmoidectomy is the procedure of choice. An alternative choice, nowadays, is resection and primary anastomosis with or without diverting stoma, especially in younger patients. Laparoscopic lavage only versus primary resection has been performed in severe cases of Hinchey III or IV. Damage control surgery, possible open abdomen, and reoperation are recommended in severe sepsis. Hinchey's classification may not be absolutely adequate, and several modifications have been proposed. Current classification criteria (CRP, qSOFA score) are more appropriate. The decision-making must be individualized depending on the hemodynamic status (septic shock), age, comorbidity, immune status, intraoperative findings, and MPI (Mannheim peritonitis index).

Operative rates in acute diverticulitis with concurrent small bowel obstruction

Background

The prevalence of diverticulitis has steadily increased during the past century. One possible complication of large bowel diverticulitis (LBD) is the concurrent development of a small bowel obstruction (SBO). The literature regarding these joint diagnoses is primarily limited to small case series from the 1950s. Consequently, no official recommendations or recent literature exists to guide decision making.

Methods

This is a retrospective case–control study with 5:1 matching by demographics, comorbidities, and Hinchey classification of patients presenting with concomitant LBD and SBO and patients with LBD alone. The primary outcome assessed was the need for same admission surgical intervention.

Results

Patients with concurrent LBD and SBO were more likely to require surgical intervention (OR 4.2, p<0.001) and more likely to receive an open operation than patients with only LBD (p<0.001). The length of stay (LOS) was longer for LBD with SBO (mean LOS +3.2 days, p=0.003).

Discussion

Patients with concurrent LBD and SBO are more likely to fail non-operative management. Given this, along with their longer LOS and higher rate of open surgery, earlier surgical intervention may improve outcomes and reduce hospital LOS.

Level of evidence

4.

The results of rapid source control laparotomy or open abdomen for acute diverticulitis

INTRODUCTION

Rapid source control laparotomy (RSCL) for the management of non-traumatic intra-abdominal emergencies has increased over the past 25 years when it was advocated for trauma patients. Little data, however, support its widespread use. We hypothesize that the patients with RSCL will have poorer outcomes than those treated with primary fascial closure (PFC).

METHODS

Patients operated for acute diverticulitis from 2014 to 2016 using The American College of Surgeons sponsored National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data were reviewed. Two groups were identified: PFC, patients with their closed fascia but skin left open (PFC) and RSCL, patients with their left open fascia after the initial operation. The primary outcome of the study was 30-day mortality, with secondary analyses evaluating complications, discharge location and length of stay. Univariate analysis was initially performed followed by propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 460 patients were surgically treated for Hinchey IV diverticulitis of whom 101 (21.9%) had RSCL. The length of stay of the RSCL patients was significantly longer (15 versus 12 days, p, 0.02) than patients in the PFC group. Similarly, the discharge destination for the PFC group was twice as likely to be discharged home as the RSCL group.

CONCLUSION

RSCL for acute diverticulitis is a widely used but is associated with prolonged hospitalizations resulting in high rates of discharge to skilled nursing or rehabilitation facilities. Its routine use for diverticulitis should be limited.

The WSES/SICG/ACOI/SICUT/AcEMC/SIFIPAC guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute left colonic diverticulitis in the elderly

Acute left colonic diverticulitis (ALCD) in the elderly presents with unique epidemiological features when compared with younger patients. The clinical presentation is more nuanced in the elderly population, having higher in-hospital and postoperative mortality. Furthermore, geriatric comorbidities are a risk factor for complicated diverticulitis. Finally, elderly patients have a lower risk of recurrent episodes and, in case of recurrence, a lower probability of requiring urgent surgery than younger patients. The aim of the present work is to study age-related factors that may support a unique approach to the diagnosis and treatment of this problem in the elderly when compared with the WSES guidelines for the management of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis. During the 1° Pisa Workshop of Acute Care & Trauma Surgery held in Pisa (Italy) in September 2019, with the collaboration of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), the Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery (SICG), the Italian Hospital Surgeons Association (ACOI), the Italian Emergency Surgery and Trauma Association (SICUT), the Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC) and the Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology (SIFIPAC), three panel members presented a number of statements developed for each of the four themes regarding the diagnosis and management of ALCD in older patients, formulated according to the GRADE approach, at a Consensus Conference where a panel of experts participated. The statements were subsequently debated, revised, and finally approved by the Consensus Conference attendees. The current paper is a summary report of the definitive guidelines statements on each of the following topics: diagnosis, management, surgical technique and antibiotic therapy.

Rate of stoma formation following damage-control surgery for severe intra-abdominal sepsis: a single-centre consecutive case series

BACKGROUND

Severe intra-abdominal sepsis (IAS) is associated with high mortality and stoma rates. A two-stage approach with initial damage-control surgery (DCS) and subsequent reconstruction might decrease stoma and mortality rates but requires standardization.

METHODS

A standardized two-stage damage-control algorithm for IAS was implemented in April 2016 and applied systematically.

RESULTS

Some 203 consecutive patients (median age 70 years, 62 per cent ASA score greater than 3) had DCS for severe IAS. Median operation time was 82 minutes, 60 per cent performed during night-time. Median intraoperative noradrenaline doses were 20 (i.q.r. 26) µg/min and blood gas analysis (ABG) was abnormal (metabolic acidosis) in 90 per cent of patients. The second-stage operation allowed definitive surgery in 76 per cent of patients, 24 per cent had up to four re-DCSs until definitive surgery. The in-hospital mortality rate was 26 per cent. At hospital discharge, 65 per cent of patients were stoma free. Risk factors for in-hospital death were noradrenaline (odds ratio 4.25 (95 per cent c.i. 1.72 to 12.83)), abnormal ABG (pH: odds ratio 2.72 (1.24 to 6.65); lactate: odds ratio 6.77 (3.20 to 15.78)), male gender (odds ratio 2.40 (1.24 to 4.85)), ASA score greater than 3 (odds ratio 5.75 (2.58 to 14.68)), mesenteric ischaemia (odds ratio 3.27 (1.71 to 6.46)) and type of resection (odds ratio 2.95 (1.24 to 8.21)). Risk factors for stoma at discharge were ASA score greater than 3 (odds ratio 2.76 (95 per cent c.i. 1.38 to 5.73)), type of resection (odds ratio 30.91 (6.29 to 559.3)) and longer operation time (odds ratio 2.441 (1.22 to 5.06)).

CONCLUSION

Initial DCS followed by secondary reconstruction of bowel continuity for IAS within 48 hours in a tertiary teaching hospital was feasible and safe, following a clear algorithm.

State-of-the-art surgery for sigmoid diverticulitis

Background

In the last two decades, there has been a Copernican revolution in the decision-making for the treatment of Diverticular Disease.

Purpose

This article provides a report on the state-of-the-art of surgery for sigmoid diverticulitis.

Conclusion

Acute diverticulitis is the most common reason for colonic resection after cancer; in the last decade, the indication for surgical resection has become more and more infrequent also in emergency. Currently, emergency surgery is seldom indicated, mostly for severe abdominal infective complications. Nowadays, uncomplicated diverticulitis is the most frequent presentation of diverticular disease and it is usually approached with a conservative medical treatment. Non-Operative Management may be considered also for complicated diverticulitis with abdominal abscess. At present, there is consensus among experts that the hemodynamic response to the initial fluid resuscitation should guide the emergency surgical approach to patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. In hemodynamically stable patients, a laparoscopic approach is the first choice, and surgeons with advanced laparoscopic skills report advantages in terms of lower postoperative complication rates. At the moment, the so-called Hartmann’s procedure is only indicated in severe generalized peritonitis with metabolic derangement or in severely ill patients. Some authors suggested laparoscopic peritoneal lavage as a bridge to surgery or also as a definitive treatment without colonic resection in selected patients. In case of hemodynamic instability not responding to fluid resuscitation, an initial damage control surgery seems to be more attractive than a Hartmann’s procedure, and it is associated with a high rate of primary anastomosis.

The role of damage control surgery in the treatment of perforated colonic diverticulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Damage control surgery (DCS) is the classic approach to manage severe trauma and has recently also been considered an appropriate approach to the treatment of critically ill patients with severe intra-abdominal sepsis. The purpose of the present review is to evaluate the outcomes following DCS for Hinchey II-IV complicated acute diverticulitis (CAD).

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic search was undertaken to identify all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies, irrespectively of their size, publication status, and language. Adults who have undergone DCS for CAD Hinchey II, III, or IV were included in this review. DCS is compared with the immediate and definitive surgical treatment in the form of HP, colonic resection, and primary anastomosis (RPA) with or without covering stoma or laparoscopic lavage. We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge. The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was published on Prospero (CRD42020144953).

RESULTS

Nine studies with 318 patients, undergoing DCS, were included. The presence of septic shock at the presentation in the emergency department was heterogeneous, and the weighted mean rate of septic shock across the studies was shown to be 35.1% [95% CI 8.4 to 78.6%]. The majority of the patients had Hinchey III (68.3%) disease. The remainder had either Hinchey IV (28.9%) or Hinchey II (2.8%). Phase I is similarly described in most of the studies as lavage, limited resection with closed blind colonic ends. In a few studies, resection and anastomosis (9.1%) or suture of the perforation site (0.9%) were performed in phase I of DCS. In those patients who underwent DCS, the most common method of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) was the negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (97.8%). The RPA was performed in 62.1% [95% CI 40.8 to 83.3%] and the 22.7% [95% CI 15.1 to 30.3%]: 12.8% during phase I and 87.2% during phase III. A covering ileostomy was performed in 6.9% [95% CI 1.5 to 12.2%]. In patients with RPA, the overall leak was 7.3% [95% CI 4.3 to 10.4%] and the major anastomotic leaks were 4.7% [95% CI 2.0 to 7.4%]; the rate of postoperative mortality was estimated to be 9.2% [95% CI 6.0 to 12.4%].

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis revealed an approximately 62.1% weighted rate of achieving GI continuity with the DCS approach to generalized peritonitis in Hinchey III and IV with major leaks of 4.7% and overall mortality of 9.2%. Despite the promising results, we are aware of the limitations related to the significant heterogeneity of inclusion criteria. Importantly, the low rate of reported septic shock may point toward selection bias. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical advantages and cost-effectiveness of the DCS approach.

Cytokine clearance in serum and peritoneal fluid of patients undergoing damage control surgery with abdominal negative pressure therapy for abdominal sepsis

Objectives

Open abdomen technique with negative pressure therapy (NPT) is widely used in patients with severe abdominal sepsis. The aim of this study was to evaluate cytokine clearance in serum and peritoneal fluid during NPT.

Methods

This prospective pilot study included six patients with severe abdominal sepsis requiring discontinuity resection and NPT for 48 h followed by planned reoperation. Cytokines (IL6, IL8, IL10, TNFalpha, and IL1beta) were measured in the serum and peritoneal fluid during index operation, on postoperative days 0, 1, and 2.

Results

Concentrations of cytokines in peritoneal fluid were higher than in serum. IL10 showed a clearance both in serum (to 16.6%, p=0.019) and peritoneal fluid (to 40.9%, p=0.014). IL6 cleared only in serum (to 24.7%, p=0.001) with persistently high levels in peritoneal fluid. IL8 remained high in both serum and peritoneal fluid. TNFalpha and IL1beta were both low in serum with wide range of high peritoneal concentrations. Only TNFalpha in peritoneal fluid showed significant differences between patients with ischemia vs. perforation (p=0.006).

Conclusions

The present pilot study suggests that cytokines display distinct patterns of clearance or persistence in the peritoneal fluid and serum over the first 48 h of treatment in severe abdominal sepsis with NPT.

Damage control surgery for the treatment of perforated acute colonic diverticulitis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Acute colonic diverticulitis (ACD) complications arise in approximately 8% to 35% patients and the most common ones are represented by phlegmon or abscess, followed by perforation, peritonitis, obstruction, and fistula. In accordance with current guidelines, patients affected by generalized peritonitis should undergo emergency surgery. However, decisions on whether and when to operate ACD patients remain a substantially debated topic while algorithm for the best treatment has not yet been determined. Damage control surgery (DCS) represents a well-established method in treating critically ill patients with traumatic abdomen injuries. At present, such surgical approach is also finding application in non-traumatic emergencies such as perforated ACD. Thanks to a thorough systematic review of the literature, we aimed at achieving deeper knowledge of both indications and short- and long-term outcomes related to DCS in perforated ACD.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines. Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were used to search all related literature.

RESULTS

The 8 included articles covered an approximately 13 years study period (2006-2018), with a total 359 patient population. At presentation, most patients showed III and IV American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (81.6%) while having Hinchey III perforated ACD (69.9%). Most patients received a limited resection plus vacuum-assisted closure at first-look while about half entire population underwent primary resection anastomosis (PRA) at a second-look. Overall morbidity rate, 30-day mortality rate and overall mortality rate at follow-up were between 23% and 74%, 0% and 20%, 7% and 33%, respectively. Patients had a 100% definitive abdominal wall closure rate and a definitive stoma rate at follow-up ranging between 0% and 33%.

CONCLUSION

DCS application to ACD patients seems to offer good outcomes with a lower percentage of patients with definitive ostomy, if compared to Hartmann's procedure. However, correct definition of DCS eligible patients is paramount in avoiding overtreatment. In accordance to 2016 WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) Guidelines, DCS remains an effective surgical strategy in critically ill patients affected by sepsis/septic shock and hemodynamical unstability.

Optimal Operative Strategy for Hinchey III Sigmoid Diverticulitis: A Decision Analysis

BACKGROUND

Operative approaches for Hinchey III diverticulitis include the Hartmann procedure, primary resection and anastomosis, and laparoscopic lavage. Several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have compared these approaches; however, results are conflicting and previous studies have not captured the complexity of balancing surgical risks and quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the optimal operative strategy for patients with Hinchey III sigmoid diverticulitis.

DESIGN

We developed a Markov cohort model, incorporating perioperative morbidity/mortality, emergency and elective reoperations, and quality-of-life weights. We derived model parameters from systematic reviews and meta-analyses, where possible. We performed a second-order Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis to account for joint uncertainty in model parameters.

SETTING

This study measured outcomes over patients' lifetime horizon.

PATIENTS

The base case was a simulated cohort of 65-year-old patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis. A scenario simulating a cohort of highly comorbid 80-year-old patients was also planned.

INTERVENTIONS

Hartmann procedure, primary resection and anastomosis (with or without diverting ileostomy), and laparoscopic lavage were performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality-adjusted life years were the primary outcome measured.

RESULTS

Following surgery for Hinchey III diverticulitis, 39.5% of patients who underwent the Hartmann procedure, 14.3% of patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage, and 16.7% of patients who underwent primary resection and anastomosis had a stoma at 12 months. After applying quality-of-life weights, primary resection and anastomosis was the optimal operative strategy, yielding 18.0 quality-adjusted life years; laparoscopic lavage and the Hartmann procedure yielded 9.6 and 13.7 fewer quality-adjusted life months. A scenario analysis for elderly, highly comorbid patients could not be performed because of a lack of high-quality evidence to inform model parameters.

LIMITATIONS

This model required assumptions about the long-term postoperative course of patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage because few long-term data for this group have been published.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the Hartmann procedure is widely used for Hinchey III diverticulitis, when considering both surgical risks and quality of life, both laparoscopic lavage and primary resection and anastomosis provide greater quality-adjusted life years for patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis, and primary resection and anastomosis appears to be the optimal approach. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B223. ESTRATEGIA OPERATIVA ÓPTIMA EN DIVERTICULITIS HINCHEY III DE SIGMOIDES: UN ANÁLISIS DE DECISION: Los enfoques quirúrgicos para la diverticulitis Hinchey III incluyen el procedimiento de Hartmann, la resección primaria y anastomosis, y el lavado laparoscópico. Varios ensayos controlados aleatorios y metanálisis han comparado estos enfoques; sin embargo, los resultados son contradictorios y los estudios previos no han captado la complejidad de equilibrar los riesgos quirúrgicos y la calidad de vida.Determinar la estrategia operativa óptima para pacientes con diverticulitis Hinchey III de sigmoides.Desarrollamos un modelo de cohorte de Markov, incorporando morbilidad / mortalidad perioperatoria, reoperaciones electivas y de emergencia, y pesos de calidad de vida. Derivamos los parámetros del modelo de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis, cuando fue posible. Realizamos un análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico Monte Carlo de segundo orden para tener en cuenta la incertidumbre conjunta en los parámetros del modelo.Seguimiento de por vida.El caso base fue una cohorte simulada de pacientes de 65 años con diverticulitis de Hinchey III. También se planeó un escenario que simulaba una cohorte de pacientes de 80 años altamente comórbidos.Procedimiento de Hartmann, resección primaria y anastomosis (con o sin desviación de ileostomía) y lavado laparoscópico.Años de vida ajustados por calidad.Después de la cirugía para la diverticulitis de Hinchey III, el 39.5% de los pacientes que se sometieron al procedimiento de Hartmann, el 14.3% de los pacientes que se sometieron a un lavado laparoscópico, y el 16.7% de los pacientes que se sometieron a resección primaria y anastomosis tuvieron un estoma a los 12 meses. Después de aplicar el peso de la calidad de vida, la resección primaria y la anastomosis fueron la estrategia operativa óptima, que dio como resultado 18.0 años de vida ajustados en función de la calidad; el lavado laparoscópico y el procedimiento de Hartmann arrojaron 9.6 y 13.7 meses de vida ajustados en función de la calidad, respectivamente. No se pudo realizar un análisis de escenarios para pacientes de edad avanzada altamente comórbidos debido a la falta de evidencia de alta calidad para informar los parámetros del modelo.Este modelo requirió suposiciones sobre el curso postoperatorio a largo plazo de pacientes que se sometieron a lavado laparoscópico, ya que se han publicado pocos datos a largo plazo para este grupo.Aunque el procedimiento de Hartmann se usa ampliamente para la diverticulitis de Hinchey III, cuando se consideran tanto los riesgos quirúrgicos como la calidad de vida, tanto el lavado laparoscópico como la resección primaria y la anastomosis proporcionan una mayor calidad de años de vida ajustada para los pacientes con diverticulitis de Hinchey III y la resección primaria y anastomosis parece ser el enfoque óptimo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B223.

La laparotomía de control de daños en pacientes sin trauma reduce el número de ostomías

Introducción. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar si la laparotomía de control de daños con ligadura y reconstrucción intestinal diferida, en pacientes con peritonitis secundaria a compromiso de víscera hueca, reduce el número de ostomías. Métodos. Se incluyeron todos los pacientes menores de 18 años de edad que ingresaron a la clínica con sospecha de peritonitis de origen no traumático y que se sometieron a laparotomía entre enero del 2003 y diciembre del 2018. Se evaluaron las características sociodemográficas, comorbilidades, escalas de gravedad fisiológica, técnicas de reconstrucción intestinal y resultados clínicos. Resultados. Se incluyeron 306 pacientes, distribuidos en tres grupos: 1) 120 (39,2 %) sometidos a resección y anastomosis, 2) 87 (28,4 %) sometidos a ostomía, y 3) 99 (32,3 %) sometidos inicialmente a ligadura intestinal. Los pacientes sometidos a ligadura intestinal presentaron mayor compromiso fisiológico al ingreso a la unidad de cuidado intensivo, con puntuación APACHE II: 14 (rango intercuartílico, RIC=10-18) en el grupo 1, 13 (RIC=11-18) en el grupo 2, y 18 (RIC=14-24) en el grupo 3 (p<0,01). Sin embargo, más de la mitad se reconstruyeron en la siguiente laparotomía: anastomosis mecánica (16/99; 16,1 %), anastomosis manual (49/99; 49,5 %), ostomía (34/99; 34,3 %). Además, estos pacientes sometidos a ligadura intestinal tuvieron un número significativamente mayor de nuevas laparotomías, y de días de asistencia respiratoria mecánica, de estancia en la unidad de cuidado intensivo y de estancia hospitalaria. No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la mortalidad entre los subgrupos: (grupo 1=19 (15,8 %), grupo 2=16 (18,4 %), grupo 3=19 (19,2 %) (p=0,79). Conclusión. En este estudio, se logró evitar la ostomía como técnica de reconstrucción definitiva en más de la mitad de los pacientes con peritonitis que se sometieron a laparotomía de control de daños con ligadura intestinal.

Emergency Surgery in Acute Diverticulitis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Acute diverticulitis is a common disease with public health significance. Many studies with a high level of evidence have been published recently on the surgical management of acute diverticulitis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to define the accurate surgical management of acute diverticulitis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were sources used.

STUDY SELECTION

One reviewer conducted a systematic study with combinations of key words for the disease and the surgical procedure. Additional studies were searched in the reference lists of all included articles. The results of the systematic review were submitted to a working group composed of 13 practitioners. All of the conclusions were obtained by full consensus and validated by an external committee.

INTERVENTIONS

The interventions assessed were laparoscopic peritoneal lavage, primary resection with anastomosis with or without ileostomy, and the Hartmann procedure, with either a laparoscopic or an open approach.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Morbidity, mortality, long-term stoma rates, and quality of life were measured.

RESULTS

Seventy-one articles were included. Five guidelines were retrieved, along with 4 meta-analyses, 14 systematic reviews, and 5 randomized controlled trials that generated 8 publications, all with a low risk of bias, except for blinding. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage showed concerning results of deep abscesses and unplanned reoperations. Studies on Hinchey III/IV diverticulitis showed similar morbidity and mortality. A reduced length of stay with Hartmann procedure compared with primary resection with anastomosis was reported in the short term, and in the long term, more definite stoma along with poorer quality of life was reported with Hartmann procedure. No high-quality data were found to support the laparoscopic approach.

LIMITATIONS

Trials specifically assessing Hinchey IV diverticulitis have not yet been completed.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality studies showed that laparoscopic peritoneal lavage was associated with an increased morbidity and that Hartmann procedure was associated with poorer long-term outcomes than primary resection with anastomosis with ileostomy, but Hartmann procedure is still acceptable, especially in high-risk patients.

Surgical treatment of acute complicated diverticulitis in the elderly

Although the true prevalence is unknown, colonic diverticulosis is one of the most common disease of the digestive tract in Western countries. Based on administrative data of hospitalized patients, the incidence of diverticulitis has been increasing in last decades. In general, elderly patients undergo less frequently an elective colonic resection; but a substantial part of emergency surgeries is performed in elderly patients. In these older patients the choice of any clinical and surgical option is to be correlated not only to the severity of diverticulitis, but also to general status and the co-existing comorbidities. In this regard, it is mandatory that all patients undergo a multidimensional, comprehensive geriatric assessment to correctly identify those who are fit, vulnerable or frail. The analysis of data currently available highlights three relevant elements: type and severity of peritoneal contamination, hemodynamic conditions (stable or unstable), and concomitant comorbidities (fit or frail status). There is no single ideal surgical treatment that can be considered as gold standard for all clinical presentations; the final clinical decision-making should always be based on patient's general health status, severity of peritonitis and of sepsis. In a septic elderly patient who is hemodynamically unstable, treatment should be as prompt as possible independent of the Hinchey's stage, and could include either a Mickulicz stoma or a DCS strategy. In an elderly patient who is fit and hemodynamically stable, the surgical options are similar to those in a younger patient. If a patient is frail but hemodynamically stable, he should be treated with a Hartmann's procedures.

Damage control surgery in neonates: Lessons learned from the battlefield

INTRODUCTION

Mortality for neonates requiring surgery for serious pathology such as NEC, remains high. Damage control surgery (DCS) has evolved as an operative strategy in battlefield trauma that sacrifices the completeness of the initial surgery to address the deadly triad of acidosis, hypothermia and coagulopathy. This approach is now used routinely in sick adults with nontrauma surgical emergencies. Here we describe our experience of using DCS in neonates.

METHOD

Neonates undergoing DCS at our hospital from 1/8/2010 to 30/11/17 had data collected prospectively.

RESULTS

27 neonates (median age 21 days; gestation 29 weeks; weight 1200 g; M:F 18:9) underwent DCS. Diagnosis (NEC 23, volvulus 2, meconium peritonitis 1, spontaneous perforation 1). Preoperative physiology: median temperature 35.5 °C, lactate 3.7, Activated prothrombin time 49; on a median of 1 inotrope (range 0 to 4); 19 had surgery on the intensive care unit. Surgery involved resection of dead bowel with the ends ligated and the abdomen left open. Operation took 38 min (26-80 min) and crew-resource management techniques were used to optimize efficiency. Second look occurred at 48 h (24-108 h) when the physiology had normalized. There were a total of 32 anastomoses in 18 patients with one leak; 3 patients had stomas for distal rectal disease. Overall mortality was 15% (4/27) or 18% in the NEC group (4/23).

CONCLUSION

Though techniques such as "clip and drop" exist, they have not been routinely incorporated into an operative strategy for sick neonates based on physiological derangement. The two benefits from our DCS approach were a low mortality and an avoidance of stomas. This approach deserves more investigation to see whether it is as effective in babies and children with nontrauma associated abdominal catastrophes as it is in adults.

TYPE OF STUDY

Case controlled study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Advantages of Damage Control Strategy With Abdominal Negative Pressure and Instillation in Patients With Diffuse Peritonitis From Perforated Diverticular Disease

Purpose. To evaluate the results of Damage Control Strategy (DCS) in the treatment of generalized peritonitis from perforated diverticular disease in patients with preoperative severe systemic diseases. Methods. All the patients with diffuse peritonitis (Hinchey 3 and 4) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score ≥3 were included and underwent DCS consisting of a 2-step procedure. The first was peritoneal lavage, perforated colon-stapled resection, and temporary abdominal closure with negative pressure wound therapy combined with instillation. The second step, 48 hours later, included the possibility of restoring intestinal continuity basing on local and general patients' conditions. Results. Thirty patients (18 [60%] women and 12 [40%] men, median age 68.5 [range = 35-84] years) were included (18 [60%] ASA III, 11 [36.7%] ASA IV, and 1 [0.03%] ASA V). Seven patients (23.3%) showed sepsis and 1 (3.33%) septic shock. At second surgery, 24 patients (80%) received a colorectal anastomosis and 6 patients (20%) underwent a Hartmann's procedure. Median hospital stay was 18 days (range = 12-62). Postoperative morbidity rate was 23.3% (7/30) and included 1 anastomotic leak treated with Hartmann's procedure. Consequently, at discharge from hospital, 23 patients (76.6%) were free of stoma. Primary fascial closure was possible in all patients. Conclusions. DCS with temporary abdominal closure by negative pressure wound therapy combined with instillation in patients with diffuse peritonitis from complicated diverticulitis could represent a feasible surgical option both in hemodynamically stable and no stable patients, showing encouraging results including a low stoma rate and an acceptable morbidity rate.

Perforated Diverticulitis with Generalized Peritonitis: Low Stoma Rate Using a "Damage Control Strategy"

PURPOSE

Optimal surgical management of perforated diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon has yet to be clearly defined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate efficacy of a "Damage Control Strategy" (DCS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with perforated diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon complicated by generalized peritonitis (Hinchey III and IV) surgically treated according to a damage control strategy between May 2011 and February 2017 were enrolled in the present multicenter retrospective cohort study. Data were collected at three surgical centers. DCS comprises a two-stage concept: [1] limited resection of the perforated colon segment with oral and aboral blind closure during the emergency procedure and [2] definitive reconstruction at scheduled second laparotomy (anastomosis ∓ loop ileostomy or a Hartmann's procedure) after 24-48 h.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were included into the analysis [W:M 28:30, median age 70.1 years (30-92)]. Eleven patients (19%) initially presented with fecal peritonitis (Hinchey IV) and 47 patients with purulent peritonitis (Hinchey III). An anastomosis could be created during the second procedure in 48 patients (83%), 14 of those received an additional loop ileostomy. In the remaining ten patients (n = 17%), an end colostomy was created at second laparotomy. A fecal diversion was performed in five patients to treat anastomotic complications. Thus, altogether, 29 patients (50%) had stoma at the end of the hospital stay. The postoperative mortality was 9% (n = 5), and median postoperative hospital stay was 18.5 days (3-66). At the end of the follow-up, 44 of 53 surviving patients were stoma free (83%).

CONCLUSION

The use of the Damage Control strategy leads to a comparatively low stoma rate in patients suffering from perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis.

Damage control surgery in perforated diverticulitis: ongoing peritonitis at second surgery predicts a worse outcome

PURPOSE

Damage control strategy (DCS) is a two-staged procedure for the treatment of perforated diverticular disease complicated by generalized peritonitis. The aim of this retrospective multicenter cohort study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of an ongoing peritonitis at the time of second surgery.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent DCS for perforated diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon with generalized peritonitis at four surgical centers were included. Damage control strategy is a two-stage emergency procedure: limited resection of the diseased colonic segment, closure of oral and aboral colon, and application of a negative pressure assisted abdominal closure system at the initial surgery followed by second laparotomy 48 h later. Therein, decision for definite reconstruction (anastomosis or Hartmann's procedure (HP)) is made. An ongoing peritonitis at second surgery was defined as presence of visible fibrinous, purulent, or fecal peritoneal fluid. Microbiologic findings from peritoneal smear at first surgery were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Between 5/2011 and 7/2017, 74 patients underwent a DCS for perforated diverticular disease complicated by generalized peritonitis (female: 40, male: 34). At second surgery, 55% presented with ongoing peritonitis (OP). Patients with OP had higher rate of organ failure (32 vs. 9%, p = 0.024), higher Mannheim Peritonitis Index (25.2 vs. 18.9; p = 0.001), and increased operation time (105 vs. 84 min., p = 0.008) at first surgery. An anastomosis was constructed in all patients with no OP (nOP) at second surgery as opposed to 71% in the OP group (p < 0.001). Complication rate (44 vs. 24%, p = 0.092), mortality (12 vs. 0%, p = 0.061), overall number of surgeries (3.4 vs. 2.4, p = 0.017), enterostomy rate (76 vs. 36%, p = 0.001), and length of hospital stay (25 vs. 18.8 days, p = 0.03) were all increased in OP group. OP at second surgery occurred significantly more often in patients with Enterococcus infection (81 vs. 44%, p = 0.005) and with fungal infection (100 vs. 49%, p = 0.007). In a multivariate analysis, Enterococcus infection was associated with increased morbidity (67 vs. 21%, p < 0.001), enterostomy rate (81 vs. 48%, p = 0.017), and anastomotic leakage (29 vs. 6%, p = 0.042), whereas fungal peritonitis was associated with an increased mortality (43 vs. 4%, p = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Ongoing peritonitis after DCS is a predictor of a worse outcome in patients with perforated diverticulitis. Enterococcal and fungal infections have a negative impact on occurrence of OP and overall outcome.

Modified Paul-Mikulicz jejunostomy in frail geriatric patients undergoing emergency small bowel resection

BACKGROUND

Proximal or extended bowel resections are sometimes necessary during emergency surgery of the small bowel and call for creating a high small bowel stomy as a part of damage control surgery. Secondary restoration of intestinal continuity in the frail geriatric patient, further weakened by subsequent severe malabsorption may be prohibitive.

METHODS

Six patients underwent emergency small bowel resection for proximal jejunal disease (83.3% high-grade adhesive SBO and 16.7% jejunal diverticulitis complicated with perforation). With the intention to avoid end jejunostomy and the need for repeat laparotomy for bowel continuity restoration we modified the classic Paul-Mikulicz jejunostomy.

RESULTS

The postoperative course was uneventful in four patients whose general condition improved considerably. At six-month follow-up, neither patients required parenteral nutrition.

CONCLUSIONS

This modified stoma can have the advantage of allowing a partial passage of the enteric contents, reducing the degree of malabsorption, and rendering jejunostomy reversal easy to perform later.

Laparoscopic versus open resection for sigmoid diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

Diverticular disease is a common condition in Western industrialised countries. Most individuals remain asymptomatic throughout life; however, 25% experience acute diverticulitis. The standard treatment for acute diverticulitis is open surgery. Laparoscopic surgery - a minimal-access procedure - offers an alternative approach to open surgery, as it is characterised by reduced operative stress that may translate into shorter hospitalisation and more rapid recovery, as well as improved quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgical resection compared with open surgical resection for individuals with acute sigmoid diverticulitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 23 February 2017); Ovid Embase (1974 to 23 February 2017); clinicaltrials.gov (February 2017); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry (February 2017). We reviewed the bibliographies of identified trials to search for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing elective or emergency laparoscopic sigmoid resection versus open surgical resection for acute sigmoid diverticulitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the domains of risk of bias from each included trial, and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we planned to calculate mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for outcomes such as hospital stay, and standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs for quality of life and global rating scales, if researchers used different scales.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials with 392 participants met the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in three European countries (Switzerland, Netherlands, and Germany). The median age of participants ranged from 62 to 66 years; 53% to 64% were female. Inclusion criteria differed among studies. One trial included participants with Hinchey I characteristics as well as those who underwent Hartmann's procedure; the second trial included only participants with "a proven stage II/III disease according to the classification of Stock and Hansen"; the third trial considered for inclusion patients with "diverticular disease of sigmoid colon documented by colonoscopy and 2 episodes of uncomplicated diverticulitis, one at least being documented with CT scan, 1 episode of complicated diverticulitis, with a pericolic abscess (Hinchey stage I) or pelvic abscess (Hinchey stage II) requiring percutaneous drainage."We determined that two studies were at low risk of selection bias; two that reported considerable dropouts were at high risk of attrition bias; none reported blinding of outcome assessors (unclear detection bias); and all were exposed to performance bias owing to the nature of the intervention.Available low-quality evidence suggests that laparoscopic surgical resection may lead to little or no difference in mean hospital stay compared with open surgical resection (3 studies, 360 participants; MD -0.62 (days), 95% CI -2.49 to 1.25; I² = 0%).Low-quality evidence suggests that operating time was longer in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the open surgery group (3 studies, 360 participants; MD 49.28 (minutes), 95% CI 40.64 to 57.93; I² = 0%).We are uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative pain between day 1 and day 3 more effectively than open surgery. Low-quality evidence suggests that laparoscopic surgery may improve postoperative pain at the fourth postoperative day more effectively than open surgery (2 studies, 250 participants; MD = -0.65, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.25).Researchers reported quality of life differently across trials, hindering the possibility of meta-analysis. Low-quality evidence from one trial using the Short Form (SF)-36 questionnaire six weeks after surgery suggests that laparoscopic intervention may improve quality of life, whereas evidence from two other trials using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) v3 and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index score, respectively, suggests that laparoscopic surgery may make little or no difference in improving quality of life compared with open surgery.We are uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery improves the following outcomes: 30-day postoperative mortality, early overall morbidity, major and minor complications, surgical complications, postoperative times to liquid and solid diets, and reoperations due to anastomotic leak.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results from the present comprehensive review indicate that evidence to support or refute the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgical resection for treatment of patients with acute diverticular disease is insufficient. Well-designed trials with adequate sample size are needed to investigate the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery towards important patient-oriented (e.g. postoperative pain) and health system-oriented outcomes (e.g. mean hospital stay).

Anesthesia for Patients with Concomitant Sepsis and Cardiac Dysfunction

Anesthesiologists faced with a patient with sepsis and concurrent cardiac dysfunction must be cognizant of the patient's cardiac status and cause of the cardiac problem to appropriately adapt physiologic and metabolic monitoring and anesthetic management. Anesthesia in such patients is challenging because the interaction of sepsis and cardiac dysfunction greatly complicates management. Intraoperative anesthesia management requires careful induction and maintenance of anesthesia; optimizing intravascular volume status; avoiding lung injury during mechanical ventilation; and close monitoring of arterial blood gases, serum lactate concentrations, and hematology renal and electrolyte parameters. Such patients have increased mortality because of their inability to adequately compensate for the cardiovascular changes caused by sepsis.

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 approach in gastrointestinal emergencies

This review focuses on the laparoscopic approach to gastrointestinal emergencies and its more recent indications. Laparoscopic surgery has a specific place in elective procedures, but that does not apply in emergency situations. In specific emergencies, there is a huge range of indications and different techniques to apply, and not all of them are equally settle. We consider that the most controversial points in minimally invasive procedures are indications in emergency situations due to technical difficulties. Some pathologies, such as oesophageal emergencies, obstruction due to colon cancer, abdominal hernias or incarcerated postsurgical hernias, are nearly always resolved by conventional surgery, that is, an open approach due to limited intraabdominal cavity space or due to the vulnerability of the bowel. These technical problems have been solved in many diseases, such as for perforated peptic ulcer or acute appendectomy for which a laparoscopic approach has become a well-known and globally supported procedure. On the other hand, endoscopic procedures have acquired further indications, relegating surgical solutions to a second place; this happens in cholangitis or pancreatic abscess drainage. This endoluminal approach avoids the need for laparoscopic development in these diseases. Nevertheless, new instruments and new technologies could extend the laparoscopic approach to a broader array of potentials procedures. There remains, however, a long way to go.