Results of Laparotomy and Laparoscopy for Perforated Colonic Diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The applications of laparoscopic surgery are expanding, but there is still controversy about its application in patients with peritonitis resulting from diverticulitis perforation. This study aimed to investigate the factors affecting the postoperative mortality rate in patients undergoing surgery for perforated diverticulitis. Further, we compared the recovery courses of patients between open and laparoscopic surgeries. METHODS: We analyzed the medical records of adult patients with peritonitis caused by perforated diverticulitis from six hospitals of Hallym University Medical Center from January 2006 to December 2016. RESULTS: A total of 166 patients were identified. In the univariate analysis, the statistically significant factors associated with postoperative mortality were age ≥ 60 years, body mass index ≥ 23 kg/m2, American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥ 3, hypertension, serum blood urea nitrogen ≥ 23 mg/dL, creatinine ≥ 1.2 mg/dL, albumin < 3.0 g/dL, modified Hinchey score ≥ grade III, formation of stoma, and laparoscopic surgery. In multivariate analysis, serum albumin < 3.0 g/dL was the only factor associated with mortality. After case-control matching, we compared postoperative hospital course and prognosis between open and laparoscopic surgery groups. There was no significant difference in the clinical course between the groups. No significant difference was observed in the complication rate, reoperation rate, readmission rate, and mortality. CONCLUSION: Low preoperative serum albumin level (<3.0 g/dL) affects the mortality rate of patients after surgery. The hospital course and prognosis after laparoscopic surgery and conventional open surgery are comparable in patients with peritonitis caused by diverticulitis perforation.

Decision-making in the management of colonoscopic perforation: a multicentre retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of colonoscopic perforation has increased following the widespread use of colonoscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal disease. The purpose of our study was to compare the clinical outcomes between surgical and non-surgical treatment of colonoscopic perforation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with colonoscopic perforation, which was treated between January 2005 and December 2014. Patients were divided into two groups depending on whether they received non-surgical (conservative management or endoscopic clipping) or surgical (primary closure, bowel resection and anastomosis, and/or faecal diversion) initial treatment for the perforation. Conversion was defined as the change from a non-surgical to surgical procedure after treatment failure. RESULTS: One hundred and nine patients were analysed. Surgical treatment was more common following diagnostic than therapeutic colonoscopic procedures (74.5 vs. 53.7 %, P = 0.023). Of 55 patients in the non-surgical group, 11 patients required conversion to surgery. The surgical group comprised 54 patients. The complication rate (P = 0.001), and the length of hospital stay (P < 0.001) were significantly greater in the patients requiring conversion than in the surgical group. Multivariate analysis showed that old age, American Society for Anesthesiologists score ≥ 3, and conversion were independent predictors of poor outcomes (P = 0.048, 0.032, and 0.001, respectively). Only perforation size was associated with conversion in multivariate analysis (P = 0.022). CONCLUSION: It is important to select an appropriate treatment in patients with colonoscopic perforation. To avoid non-surgical treatment failure, surgery should be considered in patients with a large perforation. By decreasing the rate of conversion, we might reduce the complication and mortality rates associated with colonoscopic perforation.