BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and drainage (LLD) with laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure (LHP) in the management of perforated diverticulitis and to investigate a safer and more effective laparoscopic method for managing acute perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis. METHODS: A consecutive series of patients who underwent emergent LHP or LLD for perforated diverticulitis were identified from a prospectively designed database. All procedure-related information was collected and analyzed. P < 5 % was considered statistically significant in this study. RESULTS: A total of 88 patients underwent emergent laparoscopic procedures (47 LLD and 41 LHP) between 1995 and 2010 for acute perforated diverticulitis. Diagnostic laparoscopy classified 74 (84.1 %) patients as Hinchey III or IV perforated diverticulitis. OT for LHP was 182 ± 54.7 min, and EBL was 210 ± 170.5 ml. Six LHP (14.6 %) were converted to open Hartmann's for various reasons. Moreover the rates of LHP-associated postoperative mortality and morbidity were 2.4 and 17.1 %, respectively. For LLD, the operating time was 99.7 ± 39.8 min, and blood loss was 34.4 ± 21.2 ml. Three patients (6.4 %) were reoperated for the worsening of septic symptoms during post-LLD course. Moreover, the patients with LHP had significantly longer hospital stay than the ones with LLD did (16.3 ± 10.1 vs. 6.7 ± 2.2 days, P < 0.01). In the long-term follow-up, the rate of colostomy closure for LHP is 72.2 %, and 21 of 47 patients who underwent LLD had elective sigmoidectomy for the source control with the rate of 44.7 %. CONCLUSIONS: Both LHP and LLD can be performed safely and effectively for managing severe diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis. Compared with LHP, LLD does not remove the pathogenic source; however, the clinical application of this damage control operation to our patients showed significantly better short- and long-term clinical outcomes for managing perforated diverticulitis with various Hinchey classifications.
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and drainage (LLD) with laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure (LHP) in the management of perforated diverticulitis and to investigate a safer and more effective laparoscopic method for managing acute perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis. METHODS: A consecutive series of patients who underwent emergent LHP or LLD for perforated diverticulitis were identified from a prospectively designed database. All procedure-related information was collected and analyzed. P < 5 % was considered statistically significant in this study. RESULTS: A total of 88 patients underwent emergent laparoscopic procedures (47 LLD and 41 LHP) between 1995 and 2010 for acute perforated diverticulitis. Diagnostic laparoscopy classified 74 (84.1 %) patients as Hinchey III or IV perforated diverticulitis. OT for LHP was 182 ± 54.7 min, and EBL was 210 ± 170.5 ml. Six LHP (14.6 %) were converted to open Hartmann's for various reasons. Moreover the rates of LHP-associated postoperative mortality and morbidity were 2.4 and 17.1 %, respectively. For LLD, the operating time was 99.7 ± 39.8 min, and blood loss was 34.4 ± 21.2 ml. Three patients (6.4 %) were reoperated for the worsening of septic symptoms during post-LLD course. Moreover, the patients with LHP had significantly longer hospital stay than the ones with LLD did (16.3 ± 10.1 vs. 6.7 ± 2.2 days, P < 0.01). In the long-term follow-up, the rate of colostomy closure for LHP is 72.2 %, and 21 of 47 patients who underwent LLD had elective sigmoidectomy for the source control with the rate of 44.7 %. CONCLUSIONS: Both LHP and LLD can be performed safely and effectively for managing severe diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis. Compared with LHP, LLD does not remove the pathogenic source; however, the clinical application of this damage control operation to our patients showed significantly better short- and long-term clinical outcomes for managing perforated diverticulitis with various Hinchey classifications.
Authors: Rosario Cuomo; Giovanni Barbara; Fabio Pace; Vito Annese; Gabrio Bassotti; Gian Andrea Binda; Tino Casetti; Antonio Colecchia; Davide Festi; Roberto Fiocca; Andrea Laghi; Giovanni Maconi; Riccardo Nascimbeni; Carmelo Scarpignato; Vincenzo Villanacci; Bruno Annibale Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Rachelle N Damle; Julie M Flahive; Jennifer S Davids; W Brian Sweeney; Paul R Sturrock; Justin A Maykel; Karim Alavi Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: M Sorrentino; M Brizzolari; E Scarpa; D Malisan; F Bruschi; S Bertozzi; S Bernardi; R Petri Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2014-12-31 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Norman Galbraith; Jane V Carter; Uri Netz; Dongyan Yang; Donald E Fry; Michael McCafferty; Susan Galandiuk Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Nicola De'angelis; Francesco Brunetti; Riccardo Memeo; Jose Batista da Costa; Anne Sophie Schneck; Maria Clotilde Carra; Daniel Azoulay Journal: World J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-08-27