Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Review
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Carmichael JC, Smith BR et al (2015) A comparison of outcomes of emergent, urgent, and elective surgical treatment of diverticulitis. Am J Surg 210:838–845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tadlock MD, Karamanos E, Skiada D et al (2013) Emergency surgery for acute diverticulitis: which operation? A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 74:1385–1391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gawlick U, Nirula R (2012) Resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion instead of Hartmann’s: evolving the management of diverticulitis using NSQIP data. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 72:807–814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lockhart-Mummery P (1875) Disease of the colon and their surgical treatment. John Wright and Sons LTD, Bristol 1910, pp 181–182

  5. Mayo WJ, Wilson LB, Griffin HZ (1907) Acquired diverticulitis of the large intestine. Surg Gynec Obst 5:8–15

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hartmann H (1923) Nouveau procédéd’ablation des cancers de la partieterminale du colon pelvien. Congres Francais de Chirurgia 30:2241

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cirocchi R, Trastulli S, Desiderio J et al (2013) Treatment of Hinchey stage III–IV diverticulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:447–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cirocchi R, Trastulli S, Vettoretto N et al (2015) Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage: a definitive treatment for diverticular peritonitis or a “bridge” to elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy? a systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore) 94:e334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cirocchi R, Farinella E, Trastulli S, Sciannameo F, Audisio RA (2012) Elective sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease. Laparoscopic vs open surgery: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 14:671–683

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cirocchi R, Arezzo A, Vettoretto N et al (2014) Role of damage control surgery in the treatment of Hinchey III and IV sigmoid diverticulitis: a tailored strategy. Medicine (Baltimore) 93:e184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151:264–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (2011) Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed June 2016

  13. Savović J, Jones H, Altman D et al (2012) Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies. Health Technol Assess 16:1–82

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Abraha I, Cherubini A, Cozzolino F et al (2015) Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 350:2445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291:2457–2465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Swank HA, Vermeulen J, Lange JF et al (2010) The ladies trial: laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or resection for purulent peritonitis and Hartmann’s procedure or resection with primary anastomosis for purulent or faecal peritonitis in perforated diverticulitis (NTR2037). BMC Surg 10:29

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Vennix S, Musters GD, Mulder IM et al (2015) Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 386:1269–1277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Thornell A, Angenete E, Gonzales E et al (2011) Treatment of acute diverticulitis laparoscopic lavage vs. resection (DILALA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 12:186

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Angenete E, Thornell A, Burcharth J et al (2016) Laparoscopic lavage is feasible and safe for the treatment of perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: the first results from the randomized controlled trial DILALA. Ann Surg 263:117–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Thornell A, Angenete E, Bisgaard T et al (2016) Laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 164:137–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schultz JK, Yaqub S, Wallon C et al (2015) Laparoscopic lavage vs primary resection for acute perforated diverticulitis: the SCANDIV randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:1364–1375

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. ClinicalTrials.gov. LapLAND laparoscopic lavage for acute non-feculent diverticulitis. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01019239. Accessed 19 June 2016

  24. Faranda C, Barrat C, Catheline JM, Champault GG (2000) Two-stage laparoscopic management of generalized peritonitis due to perforated sigmoid diverticula: eighteen cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 10:135–138

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. O’Sullivan GC, Murphy D, O’Brien MG, Ireland A (1996) Laparoscopic management of generalized peritonitis due to perforated colonic diverticula. Am J Surg 171:432–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Franklin ME Jr, Portillo G, Treviño JM, Gonzalez JJ, Glass JL (2008) Long-term experience with the laparoscopic approach to perforated diverticulitis plus generalized peritonitis. World J Surg 32:1507–1511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Myers E, Hurley M, O’Sullivan GC, Kavanagh D, Wilson I, Winter DC (2008) Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis. Br J Surg 95:97–101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bretagnol F, Pautrat K, Mor C, Benchellal Z, Huten N, de Calan L (2008) Emergency laparoscopic management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis: a promising alternative to more radical procedures. J Am Coll Surg 206:654–657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sorrentino M, Brizzolari M, Scarpa E et al (2015) Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for perforated colonic diverticulitis: a definitive treatment? Retrospective analysis of 63 cases. Tech Coloproctol 19:105–110

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Trenti L, Biondo S, Golda T et al (2011) Generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis: Hartmann’s procedure or primary anastomosis? Int J Colorectal Dis 26:377–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Banerjee S, Leather AJ, Rennie JA, Samano N, Gonzalez JG, Papagrigoriadis S (2005) Feasibility and morbidity of reversal of Hartmann’s. Colorectal Dis 7:454–459

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Seah DW, Ibrahim S, Tay KH (2005) Hartmann procedure: is it still relevant today? ANZ J Surg 75:436–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Di Saverio S, Birindelli A, Catena F et al (2016) The Ladies Trial: premature termination of the LOLA arm and increased adverse events incidence after laparoscopic lavage may be influenced by inter-hospital and inter-operator variability? Take-home messages from a center with laparoscopic colorectal expertise. Int J Surg 36:118–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ceresoli M, Coccolini F, Montori G, Catena F, Sartelli M, Ansaloni L (2016) Laparoscopic lavage versus resection in perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Emerg Surg 11:42

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Angenete E, Bock D, Rosenberg J, Haglind E (2016) Laparoscopic lavage is superior to colon resection for perforated purulent diverticulitis-a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. doi:10.1007/s00384-016-2636-0

    Google Scholar 

  36. Marshall JR, Buchwald PL, Gandhi J et al (2016) Laparoscopic lavage in the management of Hinchey grade III diverticulitis: a systematic review. Ann Surg. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002005

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. ClinicalTrials.gov. Laparoscopic-lavage Observational Study (LLOS). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02662088. Accessed 8 Dec 2016

  38. Slim K (2016) Role of peritoneal lavage for sigmoid perforation peritonitis surgery: What do the meta-analyses tell us? J Visc Surg. doi:10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.09.009

  39. Ceresoli M, Coccolini F, Montori G, Catena F, Sartelli M, Ansaloni L (2016) Laparoscopic lavage in perforated purulent diverticulitis-is it time for definitive conclusions? Int J Colorectal Dis. doi:10.1007/s00384-016-2674-7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Afshar S, Kurer MA (2016) Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for perforated diverticulitis: are we any further forward? Colorectal Dis. doi:10.1111/codi.13404

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr. Alessandro Quintili developed and performed the search strategy, protocol draft, trial selection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Hospital of Terni, University of Perugia, Terni, Italy

    R. Cirocchi

  2. General (Colorectal), Emergency and Trauma Surgery Service, Maggiore Hospital Regional Emergency Surgery and Trauma Center – Bologna Local Health District, Bologna, Italy

    S. Di Saverio

  3. Department of General Surgery, Royal Perth Hospital, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

    D. G. Weber

  4. The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

    D. G. Weber

  5. Department of Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, Medical University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland

    R. Taboła

  6. Health Planning Service, Department of Epidemiology, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Perugia, Italy

    I. Abraha

  7. Tift College of Education, Mercer University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    J. Randolph

  8. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    A. Arezzo

  9. Department of Surgery, Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy

    G. A. Binda

Authors
  1. R. Cirocchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Di Saverio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. G. Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Taboła
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. I. Abraha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. Randolph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Arezzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. G. A. Binda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Di Saverio.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cirocchi, R., Di Saverio, S., Weber, D.G. et al. Laparoscopic lavage versus surgical resection for acute diverticulitis with generalised peritonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 21, 93–110 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-017-1585-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-017-1585-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation