| Literature DB >> 26989381 |
Christian F Jurowich1, Christoph T Germer1.
Abstract
Diverticulitis is one of the leading indications for elective colonic resections although there is an ongoing controversial discussion about classification, stage-dependent therapeutic options, and therapy settings. As there is a rising trend towards conservative therapy for diverticular disease even in patients with a complicated form of diverticulitis, we provide a compact overview of current surgical therapy principles and the remaining questions to be answered.Entities:
Keywords: Diverticulitis; Diverticulitis guidelines; Diverticulitis surgery; Treatment of sigmoid diverticulitis
Year: 2015 PMID: 26989381 PMCID: PMC4789971 DOI: 10.1159/000381500
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Viszeralmedizin ISSN: 1662-6664
German Guidelines for Classification of Diverticular Diseasesa (GGCDD)
| Type 0 | asymptomatic diverticulitis |
| Type 1 | uncomplicated diverticulitis |
| Type 1a | diverticulitis without (inflammatory) reaction in surrounding tissue |
| Type 1b | diverticulitis with phlegmon |
| Type 2 | CD |
| Type 2a | CD with microabscesses (<1 cm) |
| Type 2b | CD with macroabscesses |
| Type 2c | CD with free perforations |
| Type 2c1 | CD with purulent peritonitis |
| Type 2c2 | CD with fecal peritonitis |
| Type 3 | chronic DD |
| Type 3a | symptomatic DD |
| Type 3b | recurrent diverticulitis without complications |
| Type 3c | recurrent diverticulitis with complications |
| Type 4 | DD with diverticular bleeding |
| CD = Complicated diverticulitis; DD = diverticular disease. | |
Studies comparing elective laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy for diverticular disease [47]
| Author, year, reference | Study design | Number (open vs. laparoscopic) | Operating time, min | Conversion rate, % | EBL, ml | Bowel activity, days | Postoperative morbidity, % | Length of hospital stay, days |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Klarenbeek et al., 2009 [ | RCT | 52 vs. 52 | 127 vs. 183 | 19 | 200 vs. 100 | NR | 28 vs. 22 | 7 vs. 5 |
| Raue et al., 2011 [ | RCT | 68 vs. 75 | 140 vs. 180 | 9 | NR | NR | 27 vs. 28 | 10 vs. 9 |
| Gervaz et al., 2010 [ | RCT | 54 vs. 59 | 110 vs. 165 | NR | NR | 4.3 vs. 3.1 | 9 vs. 13.5 | 7 vs. 5 |
| Gonzalez et al., 2004 [ | RR | 80 vs. 95 | 156 vs. 170 | NR | 341 vs. 204 | 3.7 vs. 2.8 | 32 vs. 19 | 12 vs. 7 |
| Dwivedi et al., 2002 [ | RR | 88 vs. 66 | 143 vs. 212 | 20 | 314 vs. 143 | 4.9 vs. 2.9 | NR | 8.8 vs. 4.8 |
Statistically significant.
Data given as median.
RCT = Randomized controlled trial; RR = retrospective review; NR = not reported; EBL = estimated blood loss.