PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (798387)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Management of Acute Diverticulitis and its Complications 
The Indian Journal of Surgery  2014;76(6):429-435.
Colonic diverticular disease is a common condition, and around a quarter of people affected by it will experience acute symptoms at some time. The most common presentation is uncomplicated acute diverticulitis that can be managed conservatively with bowel rest and antibiotics. However, some patients will present with diverticular abscesses or purulent or faeculent peritonitis due to perforated diverticular disease. Whilst most mesocolic abscesses can be managed with percutaneous drainage alone, pelvic abscesses are associated with a higher rate of future complications and usually require percutaneous drainage followed by interval sigmoid resection. Patients who require emergency surgery for complicated acute diverticulitis most commonly undergo a Hartmann’s procedure, although resection with primary anastomosis and laparoscopic peritoneal lavage have emerged as alternative treatment options for patients with purulent peritonitis in recent years. However, robust evidence from randomized trials is lacking for these alternative procedures, and the studies that have reported good outcomes from them have included carefully selected patient groups. There has been a move away from recommending elective prophylactic colectomy after two episodes of acute diverticulitis in the light of evidence that most patients will not experience a significant recurrence of their symptoms; elective surgery is indicated for those with ongoing symptoms, pelvic abscesses, complications—such as fistulating disease, strictures or recurrent diverticular bleeding—and those who are at high risk of perforation during future episodes, for example, due to immunosuppression, chronic renal failure or collagen-vascular diseases.
doi:10.1007/s12262-014-1086-6
PMCID: PMC4297995  PMID: 25614717
Diverticulitis; Diverticular abscess; Diverticular perforation
2.  Laparoscopic Peritoneal Lavage: A Definitive Treatment for Diverticular Peritonitis or a “Bridge” to Elective Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy? 
Medicine  2015;94(1):e334.
Abstract
To this day, the treatment of generalized peritonitis secondary to diverticular perforation is still controversial. Recently, in patients with acute sigmoid diverticulitis, laparoscopic lavage and drainage has gained a wide interest as an alternative to resection. Based on this backdrop, we decided to perform a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of peritoneal lavage in perforated diverticular disease.
A bibliographic search was performed in PubMed for case series and comparative studies published between January 1992 and February 2014 describing laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in patients with perforated diverticulitis.
A total of 19 articles consisting of 10 cohort studies, 8 case series, and 1 controlled clinical trial met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. In total these studies analyzed data from 871 patients. The mean follow-up time ranged from 1.5 to 96 months when reported. In 11 studies, the success rate of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage, defined as patients alive without surgical treatment for a recurrent episode of diverticulitis, was 24.3%. In patients with Hinchey stage III diverticulitis, the incidence of laparotomy conversion was 1%, whereas in patients with stage IV it was 45%. The 30-day postoperative mortality rate was 2.9%. The 30-day postoperative reintervention rate was 4.9%, whereas 2% of patients required a percutaneous drainage. Readmission rate after the first hospitalization for recurrent diverticulitis was 6%. Most patients who were readmitted (69%) required redo surgery. A 2-stage laparoscopic intervention was performed in 18.3% of patients.
Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage should be considered an effective and safe option for the treatment of patients with sigmoid diverticulitis with Hinchey stage III peritonitis; it can also be consider as a “bridge” surgical step combined with a delayed and elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy in order to avoid a Hartmann procedure. This minimally invasive staged approach should be considered for patients without systemic toxicity and in centers experienced in minimally invasive surgery techniques. Further evidence is needed, and the ongoing RCTs will better define the role of the laparoscopic peritoneal lavage/drainage in the treatment of patients with complicated diverticulitis.
doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000000334
PMCID: PMC4602849  PMID: 25569649
3.  Laparoscopic Lavage Is Feasible and Safe for the Treatment of Perforated Diverticulitis With Purulent Peritonitis 
Annals of Surgery  2015;263(1):117-122.
Objective:
To evaluate short-term outcomes of a new treatment for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis in a randomized controlled trial.
Background:
Perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis (Hinchey III) has traditionally been treated with surgery including colon resection and stoma (Hartmann procedure) with considerable postoperative morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic lavage has been suggested as a less invasive surgical treatment.
Methods:
Laparoscopic lavage was compared with colon resection and stoma in a randomized controlled multicenter trial, DILALA (ISRCTN82208287). Initial diagnostic laparoscopy showing Hinchey III was followed by randomization. Clinical data was collected up to 12 weeks postoperatively.
Results: Eighty-three patients were randomized, out of whom 39 patients in laparoscopic lavage and 36 patients in the Hartmann procedure groups were available for analysis. Morbidity and mortality after laparoscopic lavage did not differ when compared with the Hartmann procedure. Laparoscopic lavage resulted in shorter operating time, shorter time in the recovery unit, and shorter hospital stay.
Conclusions:
In this trial, laparoscopic lavage as treatment for patients with perforated diverticulitis Hinchey III was feasible and safe in the short-term.
doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001061
PMCID: PMC4679345  PMID: 25489672
diverticolitis; Hartmann; laparoscopy; lavage; morbidity
4.  Position paper: management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis 
Over the last three decades, emergency surgery for perforated sigmoid diverticulitis has evolved dramatically but remains controversial. Diverticulitis is categorized as uncomplicated (amenable to outpatient treatment) versus complicated (requiring hospitalization). Patients with complicated diverticulitis undergo computerized tomography (CT) scanning and the CT findings are used categorize the severity of disease. Treatment of stage I (phlegmon with or without small abscess) and stage II (phlegmon with large abscess) diverticulitis (which includes bowel rest, intravenous antibiotics and percutaneous drainage (PCD) of the larger abscesses) has not changed much over last two decades. On the other hand, treatment of stage III (purulent peritonitis) and stage IV (feculent peritonitis) diverticulitis has evolved dramatically and remains morbid. In the 1980s a two stage procedure (1st - segmental sigmoid resection with end colostomy and 2nd - colostomy closure after three to six months) was standard of care for most general surgeons. However, it was recognized that half of these patients never had their colostomy reversed and that colostomy closure was a morbid procedure. As a result starting in the 1990s colorectal surgical specialists increasing performed a one stage primary resection anastomosis (PRA) and demonstrated similar outcomes to the two stage procedure. In the mid 2000s, the colorectal surgeons promoted this as standard of care. But unfortunately despite advances in perioperative care and their excellent surgical skills, PRA for stage III/IV diverticulitis continued to have a high mortality (10-15%). The survivors require prolonged hospital stays and often do not fully recover. Recent case series indicate that a substantial portion of the patients who previously were subjected to emergency sigmoid colectomy can be successfully treated with less invasive nonoperative management with salvage PCD and/or laparoscopic lavage and drainage. These patients experience a surprisingly lower mortality and more rapid recovery. They are also spared the need for a colostomy and do not appear to benefit from a delayed elective sigmoid colectomy. While we await the final results ongoing prospective randomized clinical trials testing these less invasive alternatives, we have proposed (based primarily on case series and our expert opinions) what we believe safe and rationale management strategy.
doi:10.1186/1749-7922-8-55
PMCID: PMC3877957  PMID: 24369826
Complicated diverticulitis; Hartmann’s procedure; Primary resection anastomosis; Laparoscopic lavage and drainage; Percutaneous drainage
5.  Emergency Surgery for Acute Complicated Diverticulitis 
Viszeralmedizin  2015;31(2):107-110.
Background
The optimal treatment of acute complicated diverticulitis is a matter of debate and has undergone significant changes. Currently, the main focus of surgical treatment concepts is on controlling the emergency situation triggered by acute complicated sigmoid diverticulitis through interventional and minimally invasive measures.
Methods
This article presents the current data and recommendations on differentiated treatment of acute complicated sigmoid diverticulitis, which are also summarized in a decision tree.
Results
In general, resection of the diverticular sigmoid is needed to treat acute complicated sigmoid diverticulitis, because without resection the recurrence rate is too high at 40%. Since the morbidity and mortality rates associated with emergency resection are extremely high, resulting in the creation of a stoma, efforts are made to control the acute situation through interventional and laparoscopic measures. Therefore, pericolic and pelvic abscesses (Hinchey stages I, II) are eliminated through percutaneous or laparoscopic drainage. Likewise, laparoscopic lavage and drainage are performed for purulent and feculent peritonitis (Hinchey stages III, IV). After elimination of the acute septic situation, interval elective sigmoid resection is conducted. If emergency resection cannot be avoided, it is performed, while taking account of the patient's overall condition, with primary anastomosis and a protective stoma or as discontinuity resection using Hartmann's procedure.
Conclusion
Thanks to the progress made in interventional and laparoscopic treatment, differentiated concepts are now used to treat acute complicated sigmoid diverticulitis.
doi:10.1159/000378738
PMCID: PMC4789942  PMID: 26989380
Diverticulitis; Complicated diverticulitis; Hinchey stages; Laparoscopic lavage; Hartmann's procedure
6.  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.
doi:10.4240/wjgs.v8.i2.134
PMCID: PMC4770167  PMID: 26981187
Diverticulitis; Laparoscopy; Emergent; Lavage; Drainage; Peritonitis; Purulent; Stercoral; Complicated; Perforation
7.  Treatment of acute diverticulitis laparoscopic lavage vs. resection (DILALA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial 
Trials  2011;12:186.
Background
Perforated diverticulitis is a condition associated with substantial morbidity. Recently published reports suggest that laparoscopic lavage has fewer complications and shorter hospital stay. So far no randomised study has published any results.
Methods
DILALA is a Scandinavian, randomised trial, comparing laparoscopic lavage (LL) to the traditional Hartmann's Procedure (HP). Primary endpoint is the number of re-operations within 12 months. Secondary endpoints consist of mortality, quality of life (QoL), re-admission, health economy assessment and permanent stoma. Patients are included when surgery is required. A laparoscopy is performed and if Hinchey grade III is diagnosed the patient is included and randomised 1:1, to either LL or HP. Patients undergoing LL receive > 3L of saline intraperitoneally, placement of pelvic drain and continued antibiotics. Follow-up is scheduled 6-12 weeks, 6 months and 12 months. A QoL-form is filled out on discharge, 6- and 12 months. Inclusion is set to 80 patients (40+40).
Discussion
HP is associated with a high rate of complication. Not only does the primary operation entail complications, but also subsequent surgery is associated with a high morbidity. Thus the combined risk of treatment for the patient is high. The aim of the DILALA trial is to evaluate if laparoscopic lavage is a safe, minimally invasive method for patients with perforated diverticulitis Hinchey grade III, resulting in fewer re-operations, decreased morbidity, mortality, costs and increased quality of life.
Trial registration
British registry (ISRCTN) for clinical trials ISRCTN82208287http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN82208287
doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-186
PMCID: PMC3173351  PMID: 21806795
8.  Emergency Management of Diverticulitis 
ABSTRACT
The most common indications for emergency operative intervention in the treatment of sigmoid diverticulitis are peritonitis and failure of medical therapy. Primary resection and diversion (Hartmann's procedure) followed by delayed colostomy closure is the current standard of emergency surgical care. Guidelines for best operative strategy, however, remain controversial and continue to evolve based on recent comparative reviews of surgical outcomes. Primary resection and anastomosis with or without proximal diversion and laparoscopic lavage are alternatives to Hartmann's procedure that may provide an improved outcome in properly selected patients. Ongoing changes in the historical paradigm of the surgical approach to this disease mandate the need for large multicentered prospective randomized trials to determine the best surgical strategy under emergent conditions for the treatment of diverticulitis. The current literature is reviewed with suggestions for a management algorithm.
doi:10.1055/s-0029-1236160
PMCID: PMC2780262  PMID: 20676259
Diverticular peritonitis; diverticulitis; peritonitis; Hartmann's procedure; primary resection; anastomosis; laparoscopic lavage
9.  The Best Choice of Treatment for Acute Colonic Diverticulitis with Purulent Peritonitis Is Uncertain 
BioMed Research International  2014;2014:380607.
Severe stages of acute, colonic diverticulitis can progress into intestinal perforations with peritonitis. In such cases, urgent treatment is needed, and Hartmann's procedure is the standard treatment for cases with fecal peritonitis. Peritoneal lavage may be an alternative to resection for acute diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis, but ongoing randomized trials are awaited to clarify this.
doi:10.1155/2014/380607
PMCID: PMC4065711  PMID: 24995290
10.  Subclinical peritonitis due to perforated sigmoid diverticulitis 14 years after heart-lung transplantation 
Acute complicated diverticulitis, particularly with colon perforation, is a rare but serious condition in transplant recipients with high morbidity and mortality. Neither acute diverticulitis nor colon perforation has been reported in young heart-lung grafted patients. A case of subclinical peritonitis due to perforated acute sigmoid diverticulitis 14 years after heart-lung transplantation is reported. A 26-year-old woman, who received heart-lung transplantation 14 years ago, presented with vague abdominal pain. Physical examination was normal. Blood tests revealed leukocytosis. Abdominal X-ray showed air-fluid levels while CT demonstrated peritonitis due to perforated sigmoid diverticulitis. Sigmoidectomy and end-colostomy (Hartmann’s procedure) were performed. Histopathology confirmed perforated acute sigmoid diverticulitis. The patient was discharged on the 8th postoperative day after an uneventful postoperative course. This is the first report of acute diverticulitis resulting in colon perforation in a young heart-lung transplanted patient. Clinical presentation, even in peritonitis, may be atypical due to the masking effects of immunosuppression. A high index of suspicion, urgent aggressive diagnostic investigation of even vague abdominal symptoms, adjustment of immunosuppression, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and immediate surgical treatment are critical. Moreover, strategies to reduce the risk of this complication should be implemented. Pretransplantation colon screening, prophylactic pretransplantation sigmoid resection in patients with diverticulosis, and elective surgical intervention in patients with nonoperatively treated acute diverticulitis after transplantation deserve consideration and further studies.
doi:10.3748/wjg.14.3583
PMCID: PMC2716625  PMID: 18567091
Heart-lung transplantation; Acute diverticulitis; Colon perforation; Subclinical peritonitis
11.  Laparoscopic management of intra-abdominal infections: Systematic review of the literature 
AIM: To investigate the role of laparoscopy in diagnosis and treatment of intra abdominal infections.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed including studies where intra abdominal infections were treated laparoscopically.
RESULTS: Early laparoscopic approaches have become the standard surgical technique for treating acute cholecystitis. The laparoscopic appendectomy has been demonstrated to be superior to open surgery in acute appendicitis. In the event of diverticulitis, laparoscopic resections have proven to be safe and effective procedures for experienced laparoscopic surgeons and may be performed without adversely affecting morbidity and mortality rates. However laparoscopic resection has not been accepted by the medical community as the primary treatment of choice. In high-risk patients, laparoscopic approach may be used for exploration or peritoneal lavage and drainage. The successful laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers for experienced surgeons, is demonstrated to be safe and effective. Regarding small bowel perforations, comparative studies contrasting open and laparoscopic surgeries have not yet been conducted. Successful laparoscopic resections addressing iatrogenic colonic perforation have been reported despite a lack of literature-based evidence supporting such procedures. In post-operative infections, laparoscopic approaches may be useful in preventing diagnostic delay and controlling the source.
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy has a good diagnostic accuracy and enables to better identify the causative pathology; laparoscopy may be recommended for the treatment of many intra-abdominal infections.
doi:10.4240/wjgs.v7.i8.160
PMCID: PMC4550843  PMID: 26328036
Laparoscopy; Post-operative; Treatment; Perforation; Appendicitis; Cholecystitis; Diverticulitis; Infection; Pregnancy
12.  DIRECT trial. Diverticulitis recurrences or continuing symptoms: Operative versus conservative Treatment. A MULTICENTER RANDOMISED CLINICAL TRIAL 
BMC Surgery  2010;10:25.
Background
Persisting abdominal complaints are common after an episode of diverticulitis treated conservatively. Furthermore, some patients develop frequent recurrences. These two groups of patients suffer greatly from their disease, as shown by impaired health related quality of life and increased costs due to multiple specialist consultations, pain medication and productivity losses.
Both conservative and operative management of patients with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or frequently recurring diverticulitis are applied. However, direct comparison by a randomised controlled trial is necessary to determine which is superior in relieving symptoms, optimising health related quality of life, minimising costs and preventing diverticulitis recurrences against acceptable morbidity and mortality associated with surgery or the occurrence of a complicated recurrence after conservative management.
We, therefore, constructed a randomised clinical trial comparing these two treatment strategies.
Methods/design
The DIRECT trial is a multicenter randomised clinical trial. Patients (18-75 years) presenting themselves with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or three or more recurrences within 2 years will be included and randomised. Patients randomised for conservative treatment are treated according to the current daily practice (antibiotics, analgetics and/or expectant management). Patients randomised for elective resection will undergo an elective resection of the affected colon segment. Preferably, a laparoscopic approach is used.
The primary outcome is health related quality of life measured by the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index, Short-Form 36, EQ-5D and a visual analogue scale for pain quantification. Secondary endpoints are morbidity, mortality and total costs. The total follow-up will be three years.
Discussion
Considering the high incidence and the multicenter design of this study, it may be assumed that the number of patients needed for this study (n = 214), may be gathered within one and a half year.
Depending on the expertise and available equipment, we prefer to perform a laparoscopic resection on patients randomised for elective surgery. Should this be impossible, an open technique may be used as this also reflects the current situation.
Trial Registration
(Trial register number: NTR1478)
doi:10.1186/1471-2482-10-25
PMCID: PMC2928179  PMID: 20691040
13.  Emergency laparoscopic ileo-colic resection and primary intracorporeal anastomosis for Crohn’s acute ileitis with free perforation and faecal peritonitis: first ever reported laparoscopic treatment 
SpringerPlus  2016;5:16.
Introduction
Laparoscopy for abdominal surgical emergencies is gaining increasing acceptance given the spreading of advanced laparoscopic skills among modern surgeons, as it may allow at the same time an accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment of acute abdomen. The use of the laparoscopic approach also in case of diffuse peritonitis is now becoming accepted provided hemodynamic stability, despite the common belief in the past decades that such severe condition represented an indication for conversion to open surgery or an immediate contraindication to continue laparoscopy. Crohn’s Disease (CD) is a rare cause of acute abdomen and peritonitis, only a few cases of CD acute perforations are reported in the published literature; these cases have always been approached and treated by open laparotomy.
Case description
We report on a case of a faecal peritonitis due to an acute perforation caused by a terminal ileitis in an undiagnosed CD. The patient underwent diagnostic laparoscopy followed by a laparoscopic ileo-colic resection and primary intracorporeal anastomosis, with a successful postoperative outcome.
Conclusions
Complicated CD has to be considered within the possible causes of small bowel non-traumatic perforation. Emergency laparoscopy with resection and primary intra-corporeal anastomosis can be feasible and may be a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative to open surgery even in case of faecal peritonitis, in selected stable patients and in presence of appropriate laparoscopic colorectal surgical skills and experience. To the best of our knowledge the present experience is the first ever reported case managed with a totally laparoscopic extended ileocecal resection with intracorporeal anastomosis in case of acutely perforated CD and diffuse peritonitis.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40064-015-1619-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
doi:10.1186/s40064-015-1619-x
PMCID: PMC4703595  PMID: 26759755
Emergency Laparoscopy; Colorectal surgery; Intracorporeal anastomosis; Faecal peritonitis; Small bowel perforation; Crohn’s disease
14.  The Sigma-trial protocol: a prospective double-blind multi-centre comparison of laparoscopic versus open elective sigmoid resection in patients with symptomatic diverticulitis 
BMC Surgery  2007;7:16.
Backround
Diverticulosis is a common disease in the western society with an incidence of 33–66%. 10–25% of these patients will develop diverticulitis. In order to prevent a high-risk acute operation it is advised to perform elective sigmoid resection after two episodes of diverticulitis in the elderly patient or after one episode in the younger (< 50 years) patient. Open sigmoid resection is still the gold standard, but laparoscopic colon resections seem to have certain advantages over open procedures. On the other hand, a double blind investigation has never been performed. The Sigma-trial is designed to evaluate the presumed advantages of laparoscopic over open sigmoid resections in patients with symptomatic diverticulitis.
Method
Indication for elective resection is one episode of diverticulitis in patients < 50 years and two episodes in patient > 50 years or in case of progressive abdominal complaints due to strictures caused by a previous episode of diverticulits. The diagnosis is confirmed by CT-scan, barium enema and/or coloscopy.
It is required that the participating surgeons have performed at least 15 laparoscopic and open sigmoid resections. Open resection is performed by median laparotomy, laparoscopic resection is approached by 4 or 5 cannula. Sigmoid and colon which contain serosal changes or induration are removed and a tension free anastomosis is created. After completion of either surgical procedure an opaque dressing will be used, covering from 10 cm above the umbilicus to the pubic bone. Surgery details will be kept separate from the patient's notes.
Primary endpoints are the postoperative morbidity and mortality. We divided morbidity in minor (e.g. wound infection), major (e.g. anastomotic leakage) and late (e.g. incisional hernias) complications, data will be collected during hospital stay and after six weeks and six months postoperative. Secondary endpoints are the operative and the postoperative recovery data. Operative data include duration of the operation, blood loss and conversion to laparotomy. Post operative recovery consists of return to normal diet, pain, analgesics, general health (SF-36 questionnaire) and duration of hospital stay.
Discussion
The Sigma-trial is a prospective, multi-center, double-blind, randomized study to define the role of laparoscopic sigmoid resection in patients with symptomatic diverticulitis.
doi:10.1186/1471-2482-7-16
PMCID: PMC1955435  PMID: 17683563
15.  Perforated midgut diverticulitis: Revisited 
AIM: To study and provide data on the evolution of medical procedures and outcomes of patients suffering from perforated midgut diverticulitis.
METHODS: Three data sources were used: the Medline and Google search engines were searched for case reports on one or more patients treated for perforated midgut diverticulitis (Meckel’s diverticulitis excluded) that were published after 1995. The inclusion criterion was sufficient individual patient data in the article. Both indexed and non-indexed journals were used. Patients treated for perforated midgut diverticulitis at Vestfold Hospital were included in this group. Data on symptoms, laboratory and radiology results, treatment modalities, surgical access, procedures, complications and outcomes were collected. The Norwegian patient registry was searched to find patients operated upon for midgut diverticulitis from 1999 to 2007. The data collected were age, sex, mode of access, surgical procedure performed and number of patients per year. Historical controls were retrieved from an article published in 1995 containing pertinent individual patient data. Statistical analysis was done with SPSS software.
RESULTS: Group I: 106 patients (48 men) were found. Mean age was 72.2 ± 13.1 years (mean ± SD). Age or sex had no impact on outcomes (P = 0.057 and P = 0.771, respectively). Preoperative assessment was plain radiography in 53.3% or computed tomography (CT) in 76.1%. Correct diagnosis was made in 77.1% with CT, 5.6% without (P = 0.001). Duration of symptoms before hospitalization was 3.6 d (range: 1-35 d), but longer duration was not associated with poor outcome (P = 0.748). Eighty-six point eight percent of patients underwent surgery, 92.4% of these through open access where 90.1% had bowel resection. Complications occurred in 19.2% of patients and 16.3% underwent reoperation. Distance from perforation to Treitz ligament was 41.7 ± 28.1 cm. At surgery, no peritonitis was found in 29.7% of patients, local peritonitis in 47.5%, and diffuse peritonitis in 22.8%. Peritonitis grade correlated with the reoperation rate (r = 0.43). Conservatively treated patients had similar hospital length of stay as operated patients (10.6 ± 8.3 d vs 10.7 ± 7.9 d, respectively). Age correlated with hospital stay (r = 0.46). No difference in outcomes for operated or nonoperated patients was found (P = 0.814). Group II: 113 patients (57 men). Mean age 67.6 ± 16.4 years (range: 21-96 years). Mean age for men was 61.3 ± 16.2 years, and 74.7 ± 12.5 years for women (P = 0.001). Number of procedures per year was 11.2 ± 0.9, and bowel resection was performed in 82.3% of patients. Group III: 47 patients (21 men). Patient age was 65.4 ± 14.4 years. Mean age for men was 61.5 ± 17.3 years and 65.3 ± 14.4 years for women. Duration of symptoms before hospitalization was 6.9 d (range: 1-180 d). No patients had a preoperative diagnosis, 97.9% of patients underwent surgery, and 78.3% had multiple diverticula. Bowel resection was performed in 67.4% of patients, and suture closure in 32.6%. Mortality was 23.4%. There was no difference in length of history or its impact on survival between Groups I and III (P = 0.241 and P = 0.198, respectively). Resection was more often performed in Group I (P = 0.01). Mortality was higher in Group III (P = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: In cases with contained perforation, conservative treatment gives satisfactory results, laparoscopy with lavage and drainage can be attempted and continued with a conservative course.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v18.i34.4714
PMCID: PMC3442209  PMID: 23002340
Intestinal; Small bowel; Jejunum; Ileum; Perforation; Diverticulitis; Conservative treatment
16.  Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticulitis: a Prospective Study 
Results of this study suggest that laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease is a safe, feasible, and effective management strategy.
Background:
Surgical treatment of complicated colonic diverticular disease is still debatable. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy in patients with diverticulitis. Patients offered laparoscopic surgery presented with acute complicated diverticulitis (Hinchey type I, II, III), chronically recurrent diverticulitis, bleeding, or sigmoid stenosis caused by chronic diverticulitis.
Method:
All patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy within a 12-year period were prospectively entered into a database registry. One-stage laparoscopic resection and primary anastomosis constituted the planned procedure. A 4-trocar approach with suprapubic minilaparotomy was performed. Main data recorded were age, sex, postoperative pain, return of bowel function, operation time, duration of hospital stay, and early and late complications.
Results:
During the study period, 260 sigmoid colectomies were performed for diverticulitis. The cohort included 104 male and 156 female patients; M to F ratio was 4:6. Postoperative pain was controlled by NSAIDs or weak opioid analgesia. Fifteen patients (5.7%) required conversion from laparoscopic to open colectomy. The most common reasons for conversion were directly related to the inflammatory process, abscess, and peritonitis. Mean operative time was 130±54. Average postoperative hospital stay was 10±3 days. A longer hospital stay was recorded for Hinchey type IIb patients. Complications were recorded in 30 patients (11.5%). The most common complications that required reoperation were hemorrhage in 2 patients (0.76) and anastomotic leak in 5 patients (only 3 of them required reoperation). The mortality among them was 2 patients (0.76%).
Conclusions:
Laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease is safe, feasible, and effective. Therefore, laparoscopic colectomy has replaced open resection as standard surgery for recurrent and complicated diverticulitis at our institution.
doi:10.4293/108680810X12924466008088
PMCID: PMC3083034  PMID: 21605507
Sigmoid diverticulitis; Laparoscopic surgery; Hinchey classification; Colectomy
17.  New and emerging treatments for the prevention of recurrent diverticulitis 
Sigmoid diverticulitis is a common benign condition which carries significant morbidity and socioeconomic burden. This article describes the management of sigmoid diverticulitis with a focus on indications for surgical intervention. The mainstay of management of uncomplicated diverticulitis is broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy. The old surgical dictum that two episodes of sigmoid diverticulitis warranted surgical intervention has been challenged by recently published data. Surgery for diverticulitis thus needs to be tailored to suit individual presentation; patients presenting with recurrent diverticulitis, severe symptoms or debilitating disease impacting patient’s quality of life mandate surgical intervention. Complicated diverticular disease typically prompts intervention to resect a diseased, strictured sigmoid colon, fistulizing disease, or a life-threatening colonic perforation. Laterally, minimally invasive surgery has been utilized in the management of this disease and recent data suggests that localized colonic perforation may be managed by laparoscopic peritoneal lavage, without resection. This review focuses discussion on available evidence for contemporary surgical and nonoperative management of diverticulitis.
doi:10.2147/CEG.S15373
PMCID: PMC3190288  PMID: 22016581
sigmoid diverticulitis; colon; laparoscopic peritoneal lavage; surgical intervention
18.  Evaluation of current surgical management of acute inflammatory diverticular disease. 
During the period 1980 to 1987, 127 patients were admitted with acute complications of diverticular disease; clinically diagnosed as acute diverticulitis in 86, peritonitis in 33 and colonic obstruction in eight. In those patients diagnosed as acute diverticulitis, conservative treatment was effective in 73 (85%), the other 13 requiring surgery. Of 31 patients, with a clinical diagnosis of peritonitis who underwent operation, 19 (61%) had free purulent or faecal fluid at laparotomy and the remainder had a localised phlegmonous mass. Sigmoid resection was performed in 34 patients and nonexcisional surgery in 18. In the earlier period of the study, there was a preference for the former procedure in patients with peritonitis rather than those with phlegmonous diverticulitis (63% vs 28%), and in the later period of the study, resection was the preferred treatment in both groups (91% vs 93%). The increase in resectional surgery significantly reduced mortality, at completion of treatment, in patients with peritonitis (P less than 0.05) but not in those with phlegmonous diverticulitis. There was an additional benefit of resection in the lower number of procedures per patient (1.5 vs 2.1), a lower median total hospital stay (32 days vs 50.5, P less than 0.01) and a lower wound infection rate (16% vs 32%, P less than 0.01) at the end of treatment. The optimum surgical approach at laparotomy for acutely complicated diverticular disease would therefore appear to be a resectional procedure. Of the patients operated on for 'peritonitis', 39% were found to have a localised diverticular mass/phlegmon.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
PMCID: PMC2499490  PMID: 1929127
19.  Management of low colorectal anastomotic leak: Preserving the anastomosis 
Anastomotic leak continues to be a dreaded complication after colorectal surgery, especially in the low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis. However, there has been no consensus on the management of the low colorectal anastomotic leak. Currently operative procedures are reserved for patients with frank purulent or feculent peritonitis and unstable vital signs, and vary from simple fecal diversion with drainage to resection of the anastomosis and closure of the rectal stump with end colostomy (Hartmann’s procedure). However, if the patient is stable, and the leak is identified days or even weeks postoperatively, less aggressive therapeutic measures may result in healing of the leak and salvage of the anastomosis. Advances in diagnosis and treatment of pelvic collections with percutaneous treatments, and newer methods of endoscopic therapies for the acutely leaking anastomosis, such as use of the endosponge, stents or clips, have greatly reduced the need for surgical intervention in selected cases. Diverting ileostomy, if not already in place, may be considered to reduce fecal contamination. For subclinical leaks or those that persist after the initial surgery, endoluminal approaches such as injection of fibrin sealant, use of endoscopic clips, or transanal closure of the very low anastomosis may be utilized. These newer techniques have variable success rates and must be individualized to the patient, with the goal of treatment being restoration of gastrointestinal continuity and healing of the anastomosis. A review of the treatment of low colorectal anastomotic leaks is presented.
doi:10.4240/wjgs.v7.i12.378
PMCID: PMC4691718  PMID: 26730283
Anastomotic leak; Colon and rectal surgery; Colorectal anastomosis; Management anastomotic leak; Endoscopic treatment; Surgical complications
20.  Avoiding or Reversing Hartmann’s Procedure Provides Improved Quality of Life After Perforated Diverticulitis 
Introduction
The existing literature regarding acute perforated diverticulitis only reports about short-term outcome; long-term following outcomes have not been assessed before. The aim of this study was to assess long-term quality of life (QOL) after emergency surgery for perforated diverticulitis.
Patients and Methods
Validated QOL questionnaires (EQ-VAS, EQ-5D index, QLQ-C30, and QLQ-CR38) were sent to all eligible patients who had undergone emergency surgery for perforated diverticulitis in five teaching hospitals between 1990 and 2005. Differences were compared between patients that had undergone Hartmann’s procedure (HP) or resection with primary anastomosis (PA) and also compared to a sex- and age-matched sample of healthy subjects.
Results
Of a total of 340 patients, only 150 patients (44%) were found still alive in July 2007 (median follow-up 71 months). The response rate was 87%. In patients with PA, QOL was similar to the general population, whereas QOL after HP was significantly lower. The presence of a stoma was found to be an independent factor related to worse QOL. The deterioration in QOL was mainly due to problems in physical function and body image.
Conclusions
Survivors after perforated diverticulitis had a worse QOL than the general population, which was mainly due to the presence of an end colostomy. QOL may improve if these stomas are reversed or not be performed in the first place.
doi:10.1007/s11605-010-1155-5
PMCID: PMC2836251  PMID: 20127201
Perforated diverticulitis; Quality of life; Hartmann’s procedure; Primary anastomosis
21.  Primary Anastomosis Without Colonic Lavage for the Obstructed Left Colon 
INTRODUCTION
Resection, on-table lavage (OTL) and primary anastomosis is the treatment of choice for the obstructed left colon. OTL is time-consuming, requires considerable mobilisation/bowel handling, an enterotomy and potentially exposes the patient to mesenteric vascular injury, faecal contamination and a prolonged ileus. We have assessed outcome following primary resection and anastomosis without prior lavage.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Twenty-four consecutive, obstructed patients underwent splenic flexure mobilisation and high anterior resection (concomitant small bowel resection in 2) with primary side-to-side colorectal anastomosis without either prior lavage or covering stoma. Outcome was audited.
RESULTS
Twenty-four patients, 17 female aged 48–92 years (median. 76 years) presented with left-sided obstruction due to carcinoma (Dukes' B [3], C [6], D [1]) or chronic diverticulitis (14). Median operative time was 85 min (range, 40–105 min). Colonic ileus resolved on day 2 (29%) and day 3 (58%). Median hospital stay was 7 days (range, 6–72 days); 92% discharged by day 10. There were no deaths or re-admissions. A return to theatre followed a reactionary haemorrhage in one. This latter patient's anastomosis leaked on day 4 (no faecal contamination) and was converted to an end stoma. Urinary and wound infections were seen in two. Late complications comprised two anastomotic strictures; both responded to balloon dilatation at 5 months.
CONCLUSIONS
Resection and primary anastomosis without on-table lavage is an easy, practical, predictable and safe treatment option for left-sided colonic obstruction with minimal complications.
doi:10.1308/003588408X285874
PMCID: PMC2647191  PMID: 18492393
Obstructed colon; Primary anastomosis; On-table lavage
22.  Role of Damage Control Surgery in the Treatment of Hinchey III and IV Sigmoid Diverticulitis 
Medicine  2014;93(25):e184.
Abstract
Many of the treatment strategies for sigmoid diverticulitis are actually focusing on nonoperative and minimally invasive approaches. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the actual role of damage control surgery (DCS) in the treatment of generalized peritonitis caused by perforated sigmoid diverticulitis.
A literature search was performed in PubMed and Google Scholar for articles published from 1960 to July 2013. Comparative and noncomparative studies that included patients who underwent DCS for complicated diverticulitis were considered.
Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score, duration of open abdomen, intensive care unit length of stay, reoperation, bowel resection performed at first operation, fecal diversion, method, and timing of closure of abdominal wall were the main outcomes of interest.
According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses algorithm for the literature search and review, 10 studies were included in this systematic review. DCS was exclusively performed in diverticulitis patients with septic shock or requiring vasopressors intraoperatively. Two surgical different approaches were highlighted: limited resection of the diseased colonic segment with or without stoma or reconstruction in situ, and laparoscopic washing and drainage without colonic resection.
Despite the heterogeneity of patient groups, clinical settings, and interventions included in this review, DCS appears to be a promising strategy for the treatment of Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis, complicated by septic shock. A tailored approach to each patient seems to be appropriate.
doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000000184
PMCID: PMC4616377  PMID: 25437034
23.  First report of Kocuria marina spontaneous peritonitis in a child 
BMC Infectious Diseases  2014;14:719.
Background
Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a rare affection in the pediatric population. It usually occurs when concurrent conditions are present, such as nephrotic syndrome, peritoneal dialysis or liver disease. We report a case of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis due to Kocuria marina in a 2-year-old child with no underlying risk factor. This is both the first description of an infection caused by this rare pathogen in a child and the first reported case of primary peritonitis caused by K. marina in a patient with no predisposing condition.
Case presentation
A 2 year-old boy presented to the Pediatric Emergency Department with clinical signs of peritonitis. Laparoscopic surgical exploration confirmed purulent, generalized peritonitis without perforation. Culture of the peritoneal fluid revealed the presence of Kocuria marina, a Gram-positive coccoid environmental bacteria. After peritoneal lavage and appropriate antibiotic treatment, the patient improved and was discharged without sequel.
Conclusion
The present report illustrates the first clinical presentation of Kocuria marina SBP in a child with no underlying risk factor. Although never previously described in healthy patients, this pathogen may therefore be considered as a possible cause of SBP in a child. This unusual finding extends the spectrum of infectious diseases caused by Kocuria marina beyond the scope of the previously described susceptible population.
doi:10.1186/s12879-014-0719-5
PMCID: PMC4297396  PMID: 25547004
Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis; Primary peritonitis; Pediatrics; Kocuria; Kocuria marina
24.  Survival after acute colon diverticulitis treated in hospital 
Purpose
The aim of this study was to determine the short- and long-term relative survival as well as the causes of death in patients treated in hospital for acute colonic diverticulitis.
Materials and methods
The study included all patients treated at Levanger Hospital for acute colonic diverticulitis between 1988 and 2012. Vital statistics were complete. The median observation time was 6.95 years (range 0.28–24.66) or until death.
Results
In total, 650 different patients were hospitalized with acute colonic diverticulitis. Among these patients, there were 851 admissions for the same disease during the 25 years. The admissions had the following diagnoses: simple diverticulitis, 738; abscess formation , 44; perforation and purulent peritonitis, 47; perforation and fecal peritonitis, 9; and intestinal obstruction, 13. During the observation time, 219 were dead and 431 were still alive. After the first admission, the 100 day relative survival in patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis was 97 % (CI 95 to 99), with abscess formation 79 % (62 to 89), with purulent peritonitis 84 % (69 to 92), with fecal peritonitis 44 % (10 to 74), and with intestinal obstruction 80 % (38 to 96). After surviving the first 100 days, the estimated 5-year relative survival in the remaining 609 patients was 96 % (CI 92 to 100) and 10-year survival was 91 % (CI 84 to 97). In patients who survived the first 100 days, the different subtypes of diverticulitis yielded no significant differences in long-term relative survival. All patients who had been admitted with ASA score 4 were dead after 2 years.
doi:10.1007/s00384-014-1946-3
PMCID: PMC4197364  PMID: 24986140
Acute colonic diverticulitis; Short-term survival; Long-term survival
25.  Audit on complicated diverticular disease. 
Seventy-three patients were seen between 1970 and 1983 with complicated diverticular disease. There were only six hospital deaths (8%). Two out of 7 patients with faecal peritonitis died, 2 of 27 patients with purulent peritonitis died and there was one death each associated with an inflammatory mass and a peridiverticular abscess. Five of the six hospital deaths were from cardiorespiratory disease and only one was from sepsis. Three of the early deaths were in patients who were receiving steroid therapy. There were three late deaths: one from uncontrolled sepsis, one an anaesthetic death from coronary occlusion during revision of a Hartmann operation and the third was an incidental myocardial infarction. A very conservative surgical policy was adopted, primary resection only being used for an inflammatory mass and selectively for fistula and local purulent disease. Despite our apparent low hospital mortality there was a high incidence of complication; wound sepsis 29%, fistula after colostomy closure 12% and anastomotic dehiscence after primary or secondary reconstruction 12%. These findings indicate the need for a prospective audit which is now in progress.
PMCID: PMC2498162  PMID: 3947025

Results 1-25 (798387)