[Meta-analysis on minimally invasive surgical therapy of sigmoid 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).

Elective sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease. Laparoscopic vs open surgery: a systematic review

AIM

A meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies and one randomized trial was conducted to compare laparoscopic surgery with open surgery in the elective treatment of patients with diverticular disease.

METHOD

Published randomized and controlled clinical trials that directly compared elective open (OSR) with laparoscopic surgical resection (LSR) in patients with diverticular disease were identified using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. End-points included 30-day mortality and morbidity and were compared by determining the relative risk ratio, odds ratio, and the absolute effects.

RESULTS

Eleven nonrandomized studies of 1430 patients were identified and included in the meta-analysis. There was only one randomized study, which included 104 patients. The meta-analysis suggested that elective LSR was a safe and appropriate option for patients with diverticular disease and was associated with lower overall morbidity (P = 0.01) and minor complication rate (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

The results of the nonrandomized study generally agreed with those of the randomized study, except for the incidence of minor complications, which was higher in both the LSR and OSR groups of the randomized study. In this study, the high overall morbidity of 42.3% reported in the LSR group is a cause for concern.

Elective open versus laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease: a meta-analysis with the Sigma trial

BACKGROUND

A meta-analysis of published literature comparing open versus laparoscopic elective sigmoid resections for diverticular disease was conducted.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for data from January 1991 to March 2009. A systematic review was performed to obtain a summative outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty-two comparative studies involving 10,898 patients were analyzed; 1538 patients were in the laparoscopic group and 9360 were in the open group. The operative time for laparoscopic sigmoid resection (LSR) is longer than open resections (OSR) [random-effects model: SMD = 1.94, 95% CI = (1.14, 2.74), z = 4.74, p < 0.001]. However, patients who undergo LSR have earlier return to passage of feces [random-effects model: SMD = -1.01, 95% CI (-1.80, -0.22), z = -2.50, p = 0.013] and shorter hospital stay [random-effects model: SMD = -7.65, 95% CI (-10.96, -4.32), z = -4.52, p < 0.001]. Overall morbidity was higher in the OSR group [random-effects model: RR = 0.56, 95% CI (0.40, 0.80), z = -3.24, p < 0.001] and no difference in mortality rates was observed (p = 0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic sigmoid resection takes longer to perform than open procedures; however, it is safe and has lower overall morbidity, earlier return of bowel function, and shorter hospital stays. This approach should be considered for elective cases but more randomized controlled trials are required to strengthen the evidence.

Elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease has fewer complications than conventional surgery: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We performed a meta-analysis of published literature comparing the complications after open and laparoscopic elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched from January 1991 to March 2009. A systematic review was performed to obtain a summative outcome.

RESULTS

Nineteen comparative studies involving 2,383 patients were analyzed. There were 1,014 patients in the laparoscopic group and 1,369 patients in the open group. There was no significant heterogeneity among any of the complications analyzed. Patients in the laparoscopic sigmoid resection group had fewer wound infections (fixed effects model: risk ratio [RR], .54; 95% confidence interval [CI], .36-.80; z, -3.05; P < .01; random effects model: RR, .59; 95% CI, .39-.89; z, -2.54; P < .05), blood transfusions (fixed effects model: RR, .25; 95% CI, .10-.60; z, -3.10; P < .01; random effects model: RR, .28; 95% CI, .11-.68; z, -2.81; P < .01), and ileus rates (fixed effects model: RR, .37; 95% CI, .20-.66; z, -3.34; P = .001; random effects model: RR, .37; 95% CI, .20-.68; z, -3.21; P = .001) compared with open sigmoid resections. No difference was seen for medical complications, need for rehospitalization, and reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic sigmoid resection is safe and has fewer postoperative surgical complications. This approach should be considered for elective cases, however, more randomized controlled trials are required to strengthen the evidence.