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

Long-term outcomes and risk factors for diverticulitis recurrence after a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in Hinchey III peritonitis

PURPOSE

Recently, treatment of Hinchey III diverticulitis by laparoscopic peritoneal lavage has been questioned. Moreover, long-term outcomes have been scarcely reported. Primary outcome was to determine the recurrence rate of diverticulitis after a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in Hinchey III diverticulitis. Secondary outcomes were identification of associated risk factors for recurrence and elective sigmoidectomy rate.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study in a tertiary referral center was performed. Patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis who underwent a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage between June 2006 and December 2019 were eligible. Diverticulitis recurrence was analyzed according to the Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test, censoring for death, loss of follow-up, or elective sigmoid resection in the absence of recurrence. Risk factors for recurrence were identified using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients had a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (mean age: 63 years; 53.6% women). Four patients had an elective sigmoid resection without recurrences. Recurrence rate was 42% (n = 29) after a median follow-up of 63 months. The cumulative global recurrence at 1, 3, and 5 years was 30% (95% CI, 20-43%), 37.5% (95% CI, 27-51%), and 48.9% (95% CI, 36-64%), respectively. Smoking (HR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.22-6.5; p = 0.016) and episodes of diverticulitis prior to laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (HR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.11-12.81; p < 0.001) were independently associated with an increased risk of recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Diverticulitis recurrence after a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage is high, decreasing after the first year of follow-up. Smoking and previous episodes of acute diverticulitis independently increase the risk of new episodes of diverticulitis.

German guideline diverticular disease/diverticulitis: Part I: Methods, pathogenesis, epidemiology, clinical characteristics (definitions), natural course, diagnosis and classification

Diverticulosis and diverticular disease are ranked among the most common gastroenterological diseases and conditions. While for many years diverticulitis was found to be mainly an event occurring in the elder population, more recent work in epidemiology demonstrates increasing frequency in younger subjects. In addition, there is a noticeable trend towards more complicated disease. This may explain the significant increase in hospitalisations observed in recent years. It is not a surprise that the number of scientific studies addressing the clinical and socioeconomic consequences in the field is increasing. As a result, diagnosis and conservative as well as surgical management have changed in recent years. Diverticulosis, diverticular disease and diverticulitis are a complex entity and apparently an interdisciplinary challenge. To meet theses considerations the German Societies for Gastroenterology and Visceral Surgery decided to create joint guidelines addressing all aspects in a truely interdisciplinary fashion. The aim of the guideline is to summarise and to evaluate the current state of knowledge on diverticulosis and diverticular disease and to develop statements as well as recommendations to all physicians involved in the management of patients with diverticular disease.

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).

[Choice of operative procedure in diverticular disease : Taking the latest treatment strategies into consideration]

BACKGROUND

There are various procedures to be considered in the surgical treatment of complicated diverticulitis, which must be selected depending on the classification of diverticular disease (CDD) type and the condition of the patient.

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of surgical procedures with respect to aspects such as morbidity, mortality, reconstructive surgery and postoperative quality of life.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Evaluation, analysis and assessment of the current literature on surgical treatment of diverticular disease.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic sigmoid resection with primary anastomosis is now considered the standard procedure for complicated sigmoid diverticulitis. It is preferable to open resection because of the better results of the minimally invasive approach with respect to the incidence of wound infections, abdominal abscesses and the occurrence of fascial dehiscence. In an emergency situation with perforation and peritonitis (CDD type 2c1/2), primary anastomosis with protective ileostomy should be favored over discontinuity resection (Hartmann's procedure). In particular, it must be taken into account that in a large proportion of patients there is no restoration of continuity after Hartmann's operation. The damage control strategy can be used in perforated sigmoid diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis (CDD type 2c1/2). In individual cases, laparoscopic lavage with insertion of a drainage may be considered as a therapeutic treatment strategy for perforated sigmoid diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis (CDD type 2c1).

CONCLUSION

Selection of the surgical procedure for complicated sigmoid diverticulitis remains challenging. Randomized controlled trials of new treatment strategies as well as robotic-assisted surgery should be considered in the choice of surgical procedure in the future.

Update on the management of sigmoid diverticulitis

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

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.

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

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

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.

Novel approach to intraoperative peritoneal lavage with an extracorporeal stirring method in laparoscopic surgery for generalized peritonitis: Preliminary results

INTRODUCTION

The primary concern with laparoscopic intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) for generalized peritonitis relates to the difficulty and uncertainty in ensuring adequate washout of contaminated fluid. Here, we describe a new method of laparoscopy-assisted IOPL.

METHODS

We performed emergency surgery in 10 patients with generalized peritonitis necessitating IOPL. A small wound retractor was inserted into the abdominal cavity through an incision and elevated to raise the abdominal wall. More than 3-L saline was injected via the retractor at one time. The abdomen was manually shaken by pressure from outside the body. Contaminated fluid was removed with a long suction device through the retractor. This procedure was repeated until the fluid was confirmed to be transparent by laparoscopy, and then drains were placed.

RESULTS

Median lavage time was 23.5 minutes (range, 15-34 minutes), and volume of lavage fluid was 19 L (range, 10-20 L). Median time to resumption of fluid intake was 3 days (range, 1-12 days), time to food intake was 6 days (range, 3-14 days), and time to first bowel movement was 5 days (range, 3-10 days). Median duration of antibiotic use was 8.5 days (range, 5-15 days). Complications were one case of antibiotic-induced rash, two cases of paralytic ileus, and one case of pelvic abscess. All patients recovered well without additional surgical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This new approach to laparoscopy-assisted IOPL was feasible for these patients with generalized peritonitis. This procedure enabled corpus lavage to be performed in a similarly short time to open surgery but with less invasiveness. Further research is needed to confirm indications and long-term outcomes.

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 peritoneal lavage versus laparoscopic sigmoidectomy in complicated acute diverticulitis: a multicenter prospective observational study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) is feasible in selected patients with pelvic abscess and generalized purulent peritonitis caused by acute diverticulitis. We aimed to compare LPL and laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (LS) in complicated acute diverticulitis.

METHODS

This prospective, observational, multicenter study included patients with a pelvic abscess not amenable to conservative management and patients with Hinchey III acute diverticulitis, from 2015 to 2018. Sixty-six patients were enrolled: 28 (42%) underwent LPL and 38 (58%) underwent LS. In LS, patients had a primary anastomosis, with or without ileostomy, or an end colostomy (HA). Major outcomes were mortality, morbidity, failure of source control, reoperation, length of stay, and diverticulitis recurrence.

RESULTS

Patient demographics were similar in the two groups. In LPL, ASA score > 2 and Mannheim Peritonitis Index were significantly higher (p = 0.05 and 0.004). In LS, 24 patients (63%) had a PA and 14 (37%) an HA. No death was recorded. Overall, morbidity was 33% in LPL and 18% in LS (p = 0.169). However, failure to achieve source control of the peritoneal infection and the need to return to the operating room were more frequent in LPL (p = 0.002 and p = 0.006). Mean postoperative length of stay was comparable (p = 0.08). Diverticular recurrence was significantly higher in LPL (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

LPL is related to a higher reoperation rate, more frequent postoperative ongoing sepsis, and higher recurrence rates. Therefore, laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis carries a high risk of failure in daily practice.

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.

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.

Multicentre international trial of laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III acute diverticulitis (LLO Study)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic lavage was proposed in the 1990s to treat purulent peritonitis in patients with perforated acute diverticulitis. Prospective randomized trials had mixed results. The aim of this study was to determine the success rate of laparoscopic lavage in sepsis control and to identify a group of patients that could potentially benefit from this treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective multicentre international study included consecutive patients from 24 centres who underwent laparoscopic lavage from 2005 to 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 404 patients were included, 231 of whom had Hinchey III acute diverticulitis. Sepsis control was achieved in 172 patients (74·5 per cent), and was associated with lower Mannheim Peritonitis Index score and ASA grade, no evidence of free perforation, absence of extensive adhesiolysis and previous episodes of diverticulitis. The operation was immediately converted to open surgery in 19 patients. Among 212 patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage, the morbidity rate was 33·0 per cent; the reoperation rate was 13·7 per cent and the 30-day mortality rate 1·9 per cent. Twenty-one patients required readmission for early complications, of whom 11 underwent further surgery and one died. Of the 172 patients discharged uneventfully after laparoscopic lavage, a recurrent episode of acute diverticulitis was registered in 46 (26·7 per cent), at a mean of 11 (range 2-108) months. Relapse was associated with younger age, female sex and previous episodes of acute diverticulitis.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic lavage showed a high rate of successful sepsis control in selected patients with perforated Hinchey III acute diverticulitis affected by peritonitis, with low rates of operative mortality, reoperation and stoma formation.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Current Options for the Emergency Management of Diverticular Disease and Options to Reduce the Need for Colostomy

This article reviews the current options and recommendations for the emergency management of acute diverticulitis, including the spectrum of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage, laparoscopic lavage, and surgical options for resection with the restoration of bowel continuity.

Perforated diverticulitis: is the right and left difference present here too?

BACKGROUND

It is unclear if location of disease matters in perforated diverticulitis. Management guidelines for perforated diverticulitis currently do not make a distinction between right perforated diverticulitis (RPD) and left perforated diverticulitis (LPD). We aim to compare disease presentation and management outcomes between RPD and LPD.

METHODS

This was a 10-year retrospective comparative cohort study of 99 patients with acute perforated diverticulitis between 2004 and 2013 in a single institution. Patients were divided into RPD and LPD groups based on location of disease and compared. Disease presentation was compared using modified Hinchey classification. Management outcomes assessed were failure of therapy, length of stay, mortality, surgical complications, and disease recurrence. Univariate analysis was performed using Student's t test and χ² test where appropriate.

RESULTS

RPD patients were younger (45.7 ± 16.1 versus 58.3 ± 14.7 years) and presented with lower modified Hinchey stage and no Hinchey IV diverticulitis when compared to LPD (14.3% Hinchey III versus 44.0% Hinchey III or IV). Conservative management of Hinchey I and II RPD and LPD was similarly successful (96.1 versus 96.5%), although RPD patients had shorter inpatient stay (4.6 ± 2.2 versus 6.3 ± 3.8 days) and less disease recurrence (3.1 versus 17.9%). Ten (20.4%) Hinchey I and II RPD patients were initially misdiagnosed with appendicitis and underwent surgery.

CONCLUSION

LPD is a more aggressive disease presenting with greater clinical severity in older patients and is associated with frequent disease recurrence when treated conservatively. Misdiagnosis of RPD as appendicitis is common and may lead to unnecessary surgery.

An Update on the Current Management of Perforated Diverticulitis

The management of perforated diverticulitis is a challenging aspect of general surgery. The prevalence of colonic diverticular disease has increased over the last decade and will continue to increase as the baby boomers add to the elderly population. Improvements in diagnostic imaging modalities, efforts to maintain intestinal continuity, and percutaneous drainage procedures now result in several alternatives when selecting a management strategy for complicated presentations. Specifically, laparoscopic lavage and resection with primary anastomosis have emerged as options for treatment of Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis in place of diversion in the appropriately selected patient. Percutaneous drainage of Hinchey II diverticulitis in centers equipped with interventional radiology provides another minimally invasive adjunct. The objective of this paper is to provide an update on the current management of perforated diverticulitis, with a focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the surgical options for the treatment of Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis.

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).

Laparoscopic Lavage in the Management of Perforated Diverticulitis: a Contemporary Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Perforated diverticulitis carries the risk of significant comorbidity and mortality. Although colon resection provides adequate source control, the procedure itself carries morbidity, as well as later stoma reversal procedures. The effectiveness of laparoscopic lavage to treat perforated diverticulitis remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate current studies comparing laparoscopic lavage with colon resection in cases of perforated diverticulitis for the effectiveness in source control, without the need for subsequent interventions, stoma formation, and death.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic database searches were conducted using EMBASE, Pubmed, CINAHL, Cochrane databases, and clinicaltrials.gov following PRISMA guidelines.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included that compared laparoscopic lavage against colon resection for perforated diverticulitis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Risk of bias in RCT's was assessed the Cochrane Assessment of Bias risk tool and Jadad scale. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN OUTCOME

Outcome measures included the total rate of reoperation, rate of reoperation for infection, need for subsequent percutaneous drainage, stoma formation, and mortality rate within 90 days.

RESULTS

Three eligible randomized controlled studies were identified, with a combined total of 372 patients. Laparoscopic lavage carried an increased rate of total reoperations (RR 2.07; CI 1.12-3.84; p = 0.021) and an increased rate of reoperation for infection (RR 5.56; CI 1.97-15.69; p = 0.001) compared with colon resection. In addition, laparoscopic lavage increased the rate of subsequent percutaneous drainage (RR 6.54; CI 1.77-24.16; p = 0.005) compared with colon resection, but a lesser risk of stoma formation within 90 days (RR 0.18; CI 0.12-0.27; p < 0.001). No difference in mortality rate was observed between treatments (RR 1.03; CI 0.45-2.34; p = 0.950).

CONCLUSION

Despite decreased rates of stoma formation and equivalent mortality rates as compared with colon resection, laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III diverticulitis fails to completely control the source of infection. Our data show that laparoscopic lavage is associated with increased rates of total reoperations, increased rates of reoperation for infections, and need for subsequent percutaneous drainage.

[Treatment of inflammatory complications of colic diverticular disease at the emergency surgical care hospital]

AIM

To assess an effectiveness of minimally invasive and laparoscopic technologies in treatment of inflammatory complications of colic diverticular disease.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 150 patients who were divided into control and main groups. Survey included ultrasound, X-ray examination and abdominal computerized tomography. In the main group standardized treatment algorithm including minimally invasive and laparoscopic technologies was used.

RESULTS

In the main group 79 patients underwent conservative treatment, minimally invasive (ultrasound-assisted percutaneous drainage of abscesses) and laparoscopic surgery that was successful in 78 (98.7%) patients.

CONCLUSION

Standardized algorithm reduces time of treatment, incidence of postoperative complications, mortality and the risk of recurrent inflammatory complications of colic diverticular disease. Also postoperative quality of life was improved.

One-year results of the SCANDIV randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic lavage versus primary resection for acute perforated diverticulitis

Background

Recent randomized trials demonstrated that laparoscopic lavage compared with resection for Hinchey III perforated diverticulitis was associated with similar mortality, less stoma formation but a higher rate of early reintervention. The aim of this study was to compare 1-year outcomes in patients who participated in the randomized Scandinavian Diverticulitis (SCANDIV) trial.

Methods

Between February 2010 and June 2014, patients from 21 hospitals in Norway and Sweden presenting with suspected perforated diverticulitis were enrolled in a multicentre RCT comparing laparoscopic lavage and sigmoid resection. All patients with perforated diverticulitis confirmed during surgery were included in a modified intention-to-treat analysis of 1-year results.

Results

Of 199 enrolled patients, 101 were assigned randomly to laparoscopic lavage and 98 to colonic resection. Perforated diverticulitis was confirmed at the time of surgery in 89 and 83 patients respectively. Within 1 year after surgery, neither severe complications (34 versus 27 per cent; P = 0·323) nor disease-related mortality (12 versus 11 per cent) differed significantly between the lavage and surgery groups. Among the 144 patients with purulent peritonitis, the rate of severe complications (27 per cent (20 of 74) versus 21 per cent (15 of 70) respectively; P = 0·445) and disease-related mortality (8 versus 9 per cent) were similar. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with more deep surgical-site infections (32 versus 13 per cent; P = 0·006) but fewer superficial surgical-site infections (1 versus 17 per cent; P = 0·001). More patients in the lavage group underwent unplanned reoperations (27 versus 10 per cent; P = 0·010). Including stoma reversals, a similar proportion of patients required a secondary operation (28 versus 29 per cent). The stoma rate at 1 year was lower in the lavage group (14 versus 42 per cent in the resection group; P &lt; 0·001); however, the Cleveland Global Quality of Life score did not differ between groups.

Conclusion

The advantages of laparoscopic lavage should be weighed against the risk of secondary intervention (if sepsis is unresolved). Assessment to exclude malignancy (although uncommon) is advised. Registration number: NCT01047462 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection

BACKGROUND

Previous evidence-based guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) were published by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) in 1992, 2002, and 2010. At the time the most recent guideline was released, the plan was to update the guideline every five years to ensure the timeliness and appropriateness of the recommendations.

METHODS

Based on the previous guidelines, the task force outlined a number of topics related to the treatment of patients with IAI and then developed key questions on these various topics. All questions were approached using general and specific literature searches, focusing on articles and other information published since 2008. These publications and additional materials published before 2008 were reviewed by the task force as a whole or by individual subgroups as to relevance to individual questions. Recommendations were developed by a process of iterative consensus, with all task force members voting to accept or reject each recommendation. Grading was based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system; the quality of the evidence was graded as high, moderate, or weak, and the strength of the recommendation was graded as strong or weak. Review of the document was performed by members of the SIS who were not on the task force. After responses were made to all critiques, the document was approved as an official guideline of the SIS by the Executive Council.

RESULTS

This guideline summarizes the current recommendations developed by the task force on the treatment of patients who have IAI. Evidence-based recommendations have been made regarding risk assessment in individual patients; source control; the timing, selection, and duration of antimicrobial therapy; and suggested approaches to patients who fail initial therapy. Additional recommendations related to the treatment of pediatric patients with IAI have been included.

SUMMARY

The current recommendations of the SIS regarding the treatment of patients with IAI are provided in this guideline.

Complicated diverticular disease: Position statement on outpatient management, Hartmann's procedure, laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and laparoscopic approach. Consensus document of the Spanish Association of Coloproctology and the Coloproctology Section of the Spanish Association of Surgeons

The Spanish Association of Coloproctology (AECP) and the Coloproctology Section of the Spanish Association of Surgeons (AEC), propose this consensus document about complicated diverticular disease that could be used for decision-making. Outpatient management, Hartmann's procedure, laparoscopic peritoneal lavage, and the role of a laparoscopic approach in colonic resection are exposed.

Open versus laparoscopic approach in the treatment of abdominal emergencies in elderly population

AIM

To evaluate the role of laparoscopy in the treatment of surgical emergency in old population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Over-70 years-old patients submitted to emergency abdominal surgery from January 2013 to December 2014 were collected and grouped according to admission diagnoses. These accounted small bowel obstruction, colonic acute disease, appendicitis, ventral hernia, gastro-duodenal perforation, biliary disease. In each group it was analyzed the operation time (OT), the morbidity rate and the mortality rate comparing open and laparoscopic management using T-test and Chi-square test.

RESULTS

159 over 70-years-old patients underwent emergency surgery in the General and Emergency surgery Operative Unit (O.U.) of the Policlinic of Palermo. 75 patients were managed by a laparoscopic approach and 84 underwent traditional open emergency surgery. T-Test for OT and Chi-square test for morbidity rate and mortality rate showed no differences in small bowel emergencies (p=0,4; 0,25<p<0,9; 0,25<p<0,9), in colonic acute diseases (p=0,35; 0,25<p<0,9; 0,25<p<0,9), in appendicitis (p=0,22; 0,05<p<0,1; 0,25<p<0,9), in complicated ventral hernia (p=0,12; p>0,9; p>0,95) and in gastro-duodenal perforation (p=0,9; p>0.9; p>0.95). In cholecystitis, laparoscopy group showed lower OT (T-Test: p= 0,0002) while Chi-square test for morbidity rate (0,1<p<0,25) and mortality rate (0,25<p<0,9) showed no differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The collected data showed the feasibility of laparoscopic management as an alternative to open surgery in surgical emergencies in elderly population.

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

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

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

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

Laparoscopic lavage versus surgical resection for acute diverticulitis with generalised peritonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates current evidence on the therapeutic role of laparoscopic lavage in the management of diverticular peritonitis. A systematic review of the literature was performed on PubMed until June 2016, according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. All randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic lavage with surgical resection, irrespective of anastomosis or stoma formation, were analysed. After assessment of titles and full text, 3 randomised trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall the quality of evidence was low because of serious concerns regarding the risk of bias and imprecision. In the laparoscopic lavage group, there was a statistically significant higher rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.34-4.83), a lower rate of postoperative wound infection (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.51), and a shorter length of postoperative hospital stay during index admission (WMD = -2.03, 95% CI -2.59 to -1.47). There were no statistically significant differences in terms of postoperative mortality at index admission or within 30 days from intervention in all Hinchey stages and in Hinchey stage III, postoperative mortality at 12 months, surgical reintervention at index admission or within 30-90 days from index intervention, stoma rate at 12 months, or adverse events within 90 days of any Clavien-Dindo grade. The surgical reintervention rate at 12 months from index intervention was significantly lower in the laparoscopic lavage group (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.86), but these data included emergency reintervention and planned intervention (stoma reversal). This systematic review and meta-analysis did not demonstrate any significant difference between laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and traditional surgical resection in patients with peritonitis from perforated diverticular disease, in terms of postoperative mortality and early reoperation rate. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with a lower rate of stoma formation. However, the finding of a significantly higher rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess in patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage compared to those who underwent surgical resection is of concern. Since the aim of surgery in patients with peritonitis is to treat the sepsis, if one technique is associated with more postoperative abscesses, then the technique is ineffective. Even so, laparoscopic lavage does not appear fundamentally inferior to traditional surgical resection and this technique may achieve reasonable outcomes with minimal invasiveness.

Is it safe and useful, laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in the treatment of acute diverticulitis of octogenarian patients? A multicenter retroprospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Diverticular disease of the colon also affects older people. Generally, older patients with diverticulitis may be regarded as too risky to undergo surgery. This retroprospective multicentric observational study aims to assess the safety and benefits of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) in elderly patients with perforated sigmoid diverticulitis.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We hospitalized in urgency 100 patients, aged over 75, for sigmoid diverticulitis. Sixty-nine patients were treated with conservative medical therapy, while 31 were treated surgically, in which the surgery was performed in urgency in 18 cases, while in election in 13 cases. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage was made in urgency in five cases.

RESULTS

The mean age of the sample was 81.72. Thirty-one patients underwent surgery, and five patients were treated in urgency with laparoscopic peritoneal lavage. Perioperative mortality was zero. None of the patients who underwent laparoscopic peritoneal lavage showed recurrent disease.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic laparoscopy can be useful in elderly patient, since these patients may benefit from a more conservative surgical strategy. The selection of patients to be subjected to laparoscopic lavage must be very rigorous.

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or surgical resection for acute perforated sigmoid diverticulitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) has been proposed as an alternative, less invasive technique in the treatment of acute perforated sigmoid diverticulitis (APSD). The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness of LPL versus surgical resection (SR) in terms of morbidity and mortality in the management of APSD.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LPL versus SR in the treatment of APSD. The end points included peri-operative mortality, severe adverse events, overall mortality, post-operative abscess, percutaneous reinterventions, reoperation, operative time, postoperative stay, and readmissions.

RESULTS

Three RCTs with a total of 372 patients, randomised to either LPL or SR were included. There was no significant difference in peri-operative mortality between LPL and SR (OR 1.356, 95% CI 0.365 to 5.032, p = 0.649), or serious adverse events (OR = 1.866, 95% CI = 0.680 to 5.120, p = 0.226). The LPL required significantly less time to complete than SR (WMD = -72.105, 95% CI = -88.335 to -55.876, p < 0.0001). The LPL group was associated with a significantly higher rate of postoperative abscess formation (OR = 4.121, 95% CI = 1.890 to 8.986, p = 0.0004) and subsequent percutaneous interventions (OR = 5.414, 95% CI 1.618 to 18.118, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage is a safe and quick alternative in the management of APSD. In comparison to SR, LPL results in higher rates of postoperative abscess formation requiring more percutaneous drainage interventions without any difference in perioperative mortality and serious morbidity.

A rare case of perforation of the subhepatic appendix by a toothpick in a patient with intestinal malrotation: laparoscopic approach

Foreign body ingestion is not an uncommon problem in clinical practice. While most ingested foreign bodies pass uneventfully through the gastrointestinal tract, sharp foreign bodies such as toothpicks should cause intestinal perforation. We reported the case of a perforation of the appendix caused by a toothpick, which also pierced the liver without hepatic damages, in a male with an intestinal malrotation and subhepatic appendix. The patient was admitted to our hospital for abdominal pain in the right upper quadrant. An abdominal computed tomography scan revealed the anomalous position of the first portion of the large intestine with inflamed appendix. A laparoscopic appendicectomy and the exploration of the abdominal cavity was performed using minimally invasive technique.

Peritoneal Lavage in Complicated Acute Diverticulitis: Back to the Future

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess laparoscopic lavage in patients with acute diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND

In recent times, laparoscopic peritoneal lavage has been considered a therapeutic alternative to standard resection procedures. In Hinchey III diverticulitis there is the possibility of avoiding ostomies or resection procedures.

STUDY

This retrospective study was conducted in a single-care institution.

RESULTS

Patients requiring emergency surgery for perforated diverticulitis and generalized peritonitis between March 2011 and May 2014 were identified from a prospective database. Seventy-two patients underwent surgery for diverticulitis. Forty-three patients presented with generalized peritonitis (Hinchey III) and 29 with gross fecal contamination (Hinchey IV). From the Hinchey III group, 17 patients (39.5%), with a median age of 56.8 years, were selected to undergo peritoneal lavage.Postoperative length of stay was 4.2 days, the rate of minor complications was 35%, that of major complications was 0%, and mortality rate was 0%. Over a median follow-up of 24.6 months none required reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of patients selected for laparoscopic lavage in the management of perforated diverticulitis is increasing as it provides an alternative to Hartmann's procedure in emergency cases. This approach should be considered suitable for patients without important comorbidities, and only in centers experienced in laparoscopic surgery. It reduces the length of hospital stay. Morbidity and mortality are lower than in those in whom resection was considered necessary. Longer follow-up and results of other trials will be necessary to draw an adequate conclusion.

Acute colonic diverticulitis: an update on clinical classification and management with MDCT correlation

Currently, the most commonly used classification of acute colonic diverticulitis (ACD) is the modified Hinchey classification, which corresponds to a slightly more complex classification by comparison with the original description. This modified classification allows to categorize patients with ACD into four major categories (I, II, III, IV) and two additional subcategories (Ia and Ib), depending on the severity of the disease. Several studies have clearly demonstrated the impact of this classification for determining the best therapeutic approach and predicting perioperative complications for patients who need surgery. This review provides an update on the classification of ACD along with a special emphasis on the corresponding MDCT features of the different categories and subcategories. This modified Hinchey classification should be known by emergency physicians, radiologists, and surgeons in order to improve patient care and management because each category has a specific therapeutic approach.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage: our experience and review of the literature

Introduction

Over the years various therapeutic techniques for diverticulitis have been developed. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) appears to be a safe and useful treatment, and it could be an effective alternative to colonic resection in emergency surgery.

Aim

This prospective observational study aims to assess the safety and benefits of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in perforated sigmoid diverticulitis.

Material and methods

We surgically treated 70 patients urgently for complicated sigmoid diverticulitis. Thirty-two (45.7%) patients underwent resection of the sigmoid colon and creation of a colostomy (Hartmann technique); 21 (30%) patients underwent peritoneal laparoscopic lavage; 4 (5.7%) patients underwent colostomy by the Mikulicz technique; and the remaining 13 (18.6%) patients underwent resection of the sigmoid colon and creation of a colorectal anastomosis with a protective ileostomy.

Results

The 66 patients examined were divided into 3 groups: 32 patients were treated with urgent surgery according to the Hartmann procedure; 13 patients were treated with resection and colorectal anastomosis; 21 patients were treated urgently with laparoscopic peritoneal lavage. We had no intraoperative complications. The overall mortality was 4.3% (3 patients). In the LPL group the morbidity rate was 33.3%.

Conclusions

Currently it cannot be said that LPL is better in terms of mortality and morbidity than colonic resection. These data may, however, be proven wrong by greater attention in the selection of patients to undergo laparoscopic peritoneal lavage.

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.

Laparoscopic treatment of complicated colonic diverticular disease: A review

Up to 10% of acute colonic diverticulitis may necessitate a surgical intervention. Although associated with high morbidity and mortality rates, Hartmann’s procedure (HP) has been considered for many years to be the gold standard for the treatment of generalized peritonitis. To reduce the burden of surgery in these situations and as driven by the accumulated experience in colorectal and minimally-invasive surgery, laparoscopy has been increasingly adopted in the management of abdominal emergencies. Multiple case series and retrospective comparative studies confirmed that with experienced hands, the laparoscopic approach provided better outcomes than the open surgery. This technique applies to all interventions related to complicated diverticular disease, such as HP, sigmoid resection with primary anastomosis (RPA) and reversal of HP. The laparoscopic approach also provided new therapeutic possibilities with the emergence of the laparoscopic lavage drainage (LLD), particularly interesting in the context of purulent peritonitis of diverticular origin. At this stage, however, most of our knowledge in these fields relies on studies of low-level evidence. More than ever, well-built large randomized controlled trials are necessary to answer present interrogations such as the exact place of LLD or the most appropriate sigmoid resection procedure (laparoscopic HP or RPA), as well as to confirm the advantages of laparoscopy in chronic complications of diverticulitis or HP reversal.