Severity of Diverticulitis Does Not Influence Abdominal Complaints during Long-Term Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Diverticulitis can lead to localized or generalized peritonitis and consequently induce abdominal adhesion formation. If adhesions would lead to abdominal complaints, it might be expected that these would be more prominent after operation for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis than after elective sigmoid resection. AIMS: The primary outcome of the study was the incidence of abdominal complaints in the long-term after acute and elective surgery for diverticulitis. METHODS: During the period 2003 through 2009, 269 patients were operated for diverticular disease. Two hundred eight of them were invited to fill out a questionnaire composed of the gastrointestinal quality of life index and additional questions and finally 109 were suitable for analysis with a mean follow-up of 7.5 years. RESULTS: Analysis did not reveal any significant differences in the incidence of abdominal complaints or other parameters. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study on patients after operation for diverticulitis shows that in the long term, the severity of the abdominal complaints is influenced neither by the stage of the disease nor by the fact of whether it was performed in an acute or elective setting.

Non-Cross-Linked Collagen Mesh Performs Best in a Physiologic, Noncontaminated Rat Model.

BACKGROUND: In laparoscopic incisional hernia repair, direct contact between the prosthesis and abdominal viscera is inevitable and may lead to adhesions. Despite the large variety of mesh prosthesis, little is known about their in vivo behavior. Biological meshes are considered to have many advantages, but due to their price they are rarely used. A rat model was used to assess biological and conventional synthetic meshes on their in vivo characteristics. DESIGN: One-hundred twenty male Wistar rats were randomized into five groups of 24 rats. A mesh was implanted intraperitoneally and fixated with nonresorbable sutures. The following five meshes were implanted: Parietene (polypropylene), Permacol (cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrix), Strattice (non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrix), XCM Biologic (non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrix), and Omyra Mesh (condensed polytetrafluoroethylene). The rats were sacrificed after 30, 90, or 180 days. Incorporation, shrinkage, adhesions, abscess formation, and histology were assessed for all meshes. RESULTS: All animals thrived postoperatively. After 180 days, Permacol, Parietene, and Omyra Mesh had a significantly better incorporation than Strattice ( P = .001, P = .019, and P = .037 respectively). After 180 days, Strattice had significantly fewer adhesions on the surface of the mesh than Parietene ( P < .001), Omyra Mesh ( P = .011), and Permacol ( P = .027). After 30 days, Permacol had significantly stronger adhesions than Strattice ( P = .030). However, this difference was not significant anymore after 180 days. After 180 days, there was significantly less shrinkage in Permacol than in Strattice ( P = .001) and Omyra Mesh ( P = .050). CONCLUSION: Based on incorporation, adhesions, mesh shrinkage, and histologic parameters, Strattice performed best in this experimental rat model.

Reinforcement of the colon anastomosis with cyanoacrylate glue: a porcine model.

BACKGROUND: Previous experimental studies on cyanoacrylate (CA) glue for the prevention of colorectal anastomotic leakage (AL) have shown promising results. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of CA in prevention of leakage in a porcine model of ischemic colorectal AL. METHODS: Twenty-four animals were divided into four groups of six: (1)ischemic anastomosis with sufficient suture (ISCH), (2)ischemic anastomosis with sufficient suture and CA reinforcement (CA-ISCH), (3)ischemic anastomosis with insufficient suture (ISCH-AI), and (4)ischemic anastomosis with insufficient suture and CA reinforcement (CA-ISCH-AI). In CA groups, N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate was applied between the colon ends. Anastomotic bursting pressure, abscess formation, and adhesion formation were evaluated on postoperative day 7. Tissue samples were obtained for histologic evaluation of foreign body reaction. RESULTS: The AL rate was 4 of 6 (67%) in the ISCH-AI group compared with none in the other three groups. The ISCH and ISCH-AI groups had significantly higher AL scores compared with the CA groups. The mean anastomotic bursting pressure was 167 ± 54 mm Hg in the ISCH-group versus 213 ± 43 mm Hg in the CA-ISCH-group (P = nonsignificant) and 145 ± 102 mm Hg in the ISCH-AI group versus 187 ± 19 mm Hg in the CA-ISCH-AI group (P = nonsignificant). The average adhesion score was significantly higher in the ISCH group than in the CA-ISCH group (4.2 ± 1.3 versus 1.7 ± 0.82; P = 0.019). Stricture of the anastomosis occurred only in the non-CA groups (3/12, 25%). CONCLUSIONS: Anastomotic reinforcement with CA is effective and safe to prevent leakage in a high-risk colorectal anastomosis in a porcine model.

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Case series suggest that laparoscopic peritoneal lavage might be a promising alternative to sigmoidectomy in patients with perforated diverticulitis. We aimed to assess the superiority of laparoscopic lavage compared with sigmoidectomy in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis, with respect to overall long-term morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We did a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial in 34 teaching hospitals and eight academic hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands (the Ladies trial). The Ladies trial is split into two groups: the LOLA group comparing laparoscopic lavage with sigmoidectomy and the DIVA group comparing Hartmann's procedure with sigmoidectomy plus primary anastomosis. The DIVA section of this trial is still underway but here we report the results of the LOLA section. Patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis were enrolled for LOLA, excluding patients with faecal peritonitis, aged older than 85 years, with high-dose steroid use (≥20 mg daily), and haemodynamic instability. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1; stratified by age [<60 years vs ≥60 years]) using secure online computer randomisation to laparoscopic lavage, Hartmann's procedure, or primary anastomosis in a parallel design after diagnostic laparoscopy. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle and were followed up after the index operation at least once in the outpatient setting and after sigmoidoscopy and stoma reversal, according to local protocols. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of major morbidity and mortality within 12 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, 90 patients were randomly assigned in the LOLA section of the Ladies trial when the study was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board because of an increased event rate in the lavage group. Two patients were excluded for protocol violations. The primary endpoint occurred in 30 (67%) of 45 patients in the lavage group and 25 (60%) of 42 patients in the sigmoidectomy group (odds ratio 1·28, 95% CI 0·54-3·03, p=0·58). By 12 months, four patients had died after lavage and six patients had died after sigmoidectomy (p=0·43). INTERPRETATION: Laparoscopic lavage is not superior to sigmoidectomy for the treatment of purulent perforated diverticulitis. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Pushing the envelope: laparoscopy and primary anastomosis are technically feasible in stable patients with Hinchey IV perforated acute diverticulitis and gross faeculent peritonitis.

INTRODUCTION: Modern management of severe acute complicated diverticulitis continues to evolve towards more conservative and minimally invasive strategies. Although open sigmoid colectomy with end colostomy remains the most commonly used procedure for the treatment of perforated diverticulitis with purulent/faeculent peritonitis, recent major advances challenged this traditional approach, including the increasing attitude towards primary anastomosis as an alternative to end colostomy and use of laparoscopic approach for urgent colectomy. TECHNIQUE: Provided an accurate patients selection, having the necessary haemodynamic stability, pneumoperitoneum is established with open Hasson technique and diagnostic laparoscopy is performed. If faeculent peritonitis (Hinchey IV perforated diverticulitis) is found, laparoscopy can be continued and a further three working ports are placed using bladeless trocars, as in traditional laparoscopic sigmoidectomy, with the addition of fourth trocar in left flank. The feacal matter is aspirated either with large-size suction devices or, in case of free solid stools, these can be removed with novel application of tight sealing endobags, which can be used for scooping the feacal content out and for its protected retrieval. After decontamination, a sigmoid colectomy is performed in the traditional laparoscopic fashion. The sigmoid is fully mobilised from the retroperitoneum, and mesocolon is divided up to the origin of left colic vessels. Whenever mesentery has extremely inflamed and thickened oedematous tissues, an endostapler with vascular load can be used to avoid vascular selective ligatures. Splenic flexure should be appropriately mobilised. The specimen is extracted through mini-Pfannenstiel incision with muscle splitting technique. Transanal colo-rectal anastomosis is fashioned. Air-leak test must be performed and drains placed where appropriate. RESULTS: The video shows operative technique for a single-stage, entirely laparoscopic, washout and sigmoid colectomy with primary colorectal anastomosis in a 35-year-old male patient with severe and diffuse free faeculent diverticular peritonitis (Hinchey IV). The patient was managed post-operatively according to enhanced recovery protocol and discharged home after 9 days, following an uneventful recovery. CONCLUSIONS: This case documents the technical feasibility of a minimally invasive single-stage procedure in a patient with Hinchey IV perforated diverticulitis with diffuse feacal peritonitis. The laparoscopic approach facilitated an effective decontamination of the peritoneal cavity, with a combination of large suction devices and aid of protected retrieval by closed endobags for effectively and completely laparoscopic removal of the solid feacal matter, offering clear advantages and excellent results even in such challenging cases. With necessary expertise, the sigmoid resection can be thereafter safely and entirely performed laparoscopically, the specimen extracted through mini-Pfannenstiel incision, and a laparoscopic intracorporeal transanal circular primary anastomosis performed.

Acute laparoscopic and open sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis: a propensity score-matched cohort.

BACKGROUND: Hartmann's procedure for perforated diverticulitis can be characterised by high morbidity and mortality rates. While the scientific community focuses on laparoscopic lavage as an alternative for laparotomy, the option of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy seems overlooked. We compared morbidity and hospital stay following acute laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (LS) and open sigmoidectomy (OS) for perforated diverticulitis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort parallel to the Ladies trial included patients from 28 Dutch academic or teaching hospitals between July 2010 and July 2014. Patients with LS were matched 1:2 to OS using the propensity score for age, gender, previous laparotomy, CRP level, gastrointestinal surgeon, and Hinchey classification. RESULTS: The propensity-matched cohort consisted of 39 patients with LS and 78 patients with OS, selected from a sample of 307 consecutive patients with purulent or faecal perforated diverticulitis. In both groups, 66 % of the patients had Hartmann's procedure and 34 % had primary anastomosis. The hospital stay was shorter following LS (LS 7 vs OS 9 days; P = 0.016), and the postoperative morbidity rate was lower following LS (LS 44 % vs OS 66 %; P = 0.016). Mortality was low in both groups (LS 3 % vs OS 4 %; P = 0.685). The stoma reversal rate after Hartmann's procedure was higher following laparoscopy, with a probability of being stoma-free at 12 months of 88 and 62 % in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (P = 0.019). After primary anastomosis, the probability of reversal was 100 % in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity score-matched cohort, laparoscopic sigmoidectomy is superior to open sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with regard to postoperative morbidity and hospital stay.

Emergency Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Perforated Diverticulitis with Generalised Peritonitis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis has initially been confined to the elective setting. However, open acute sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis is associated with high morbidity rates that might be reduced after laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the feasibility of emergency laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL. All studies reporting on patients with perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey III-IV) treated by laparoscopic sigmoidectomy in the acute phase were included, regardless of design. RESULTS: We included 4 case series and one cohort study (total of 104 patients) out of 1,706 references. Hartmann's procedure (HP) was performed in 84 patients and primary anastomosis in 20. The mean operating time varied between 115 and 200 min. The conversion rate varied from 0 to 19%. The mean length of hospital stay ranged between 6 and 16 days. Surgical re-intervention was necessary in 2 patients. In 20 patients operated upon without defunctioning ileostomy, no anastomotic leakage was reported. Three patients died during the postoperative period. Stoma reversal after HP was performed in 60 out of 79 evaluable patients (76%). CONCLUSIONS: Acute laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for the treatment of perforated diverticulitis is feasible in selected patients provided they are handled by experienced hands.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer including rectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the western world. For colon carcinoma, laparoscopic surgery is proven to result in faster postoperative recovery, fewer complications and better cosmetic results with equal oncologic results. These short-term benefits are expected to be similar for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial due to the lack of definitive long-term results. Thus, the expected short-term benefits can only be of interest when oncological results are at least equal. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the differences in short- and long-term results after elective laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for the resection of rectal cancer compared with open total mesorectal excision (OTME). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1990 to February 2013), EMBASE (January 1990 to February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2013) and Current Controlled Trials (February 2013). We handsearched the reference lists of the included articles for missed studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LTME and OTME, reporting at least one of our outcome measures, was considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study quality according to the CONSORT statement, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We rated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 45 references out of 953 search results, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria involving 3528 rectal cancer patients. We did not consider the risk of bias of the included studies to have impacted on the quality of the evidence. Data were analysed according to an intention-to-treat principle with a mean conversion rate of 14.5% (range 0% to 35%) in the laparoscopic group.There was moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic and open TME had similar effects on five-year disease-free survival (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.76 to1.38, 4 studies, N = 943). The estimated effects of laparoscopic and open TME on local recurrence and overall survival were similar, although confidence intervals were wide, both with moderate quality evidence (local recurrence: OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.57 to1.39 and overall survival rate: OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.87 to1.52). There was moderate to high quality evidence that the number of resected lymph nodes and surgical margins were similar between the two groups.For the short-term results, length of hospital stay was reduced by two days (95% CI -3.22 to -1.10), moderate quality evidence), and the time to first defecation was shorter in the LTME group (-0.86 days; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.54). There was moderate quality evidence that 30 days morbidity were similar in both groups (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.1). There were fewer wound infections (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93) and fewer bleeding complications (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.93) in the LTME group.There was no clear evidence of any differences in quality of life after LTME or OTME regarding functional recovery, bladder and sexual function. The costs were higher for LTME with differences up to GBP 2000 for direct costs only. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have found moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has similar effects to open TME on long term survival outcomes for the treatment of rectal cancer. The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to imprecision and further research could impact on our confidence in this result. There is moderate quality evidence that it leads to better short-term post-surgical outcomes in terms of recovery for non-locally advanced rectal cancer. Currently results are consistent in showing a similar disease-free survival and overall survival, and for recurrences after at least three years and up to 10 years, although due to imprecision we cannot rule out superiority of either approach. We await long-term data from a number of ongoing and recently completed studies to contribute to a more robust analysis of long-term disease free, overall survival and local recurrence.

Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (LADIES): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis is superior to Hartmann's procedure. The likelihood of stoma reversal after primary anastomosis has been reported to be higher and reversal seems to be associated with lower morbidity and mortality. Although promising, results from these previous studies remain uncertain because of potential selection bias. Therefore, this study aimed to assess outcomes after Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy, for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (Hinchey III or IV disease) in a randomised trial. METHODS: A multicentre, randomised, open-label, superiority trial was done in eight academic hospitals and 34 teaching hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands. Patients aged between 18 and 85 years who presented with clinical signs of general peritonitis and suspected perforated diverticulitis were eligible for inclusion if plain abdominal radiography or CT scan showed diffuse free air or fluid. Patients with Hinchey I or II diverticulitis were not eligible for inclusion. Patients were allocated (1:1) to Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy. Patients were enrolled by the surgeon or surgical resident involved, and secure online randomisation software was used in the operating room or by the trial coordinator on the phone. Random and concealed block sizes of two, four, or six were used, and randomisation was stratified by age (<60 and ≥60 years). The primary endpoint was 12-month stoma-free survival. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR2037, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, and June 9, 2013, and trial termination on June 3, 2016, 133 patients (93 with Hinchey III disease and 40 with Hinchey IV disease) were randomly assigned to Hartmann's procedure (68 patients) or primary anastomosis (65 patients). Two patients in the Hartmann's group were excluded, as was one in the primary anastomosis group; the modified intention-to-treat population therefore consisted of 66 patients in the Hartmann's procedure group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 20 with Hinchey IV disease) and 64 in the primary anastomosis group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 18 with Hinchey IV disease). In 17 (27%) of 64 patients assigned to primary anastomosis, no stoma was constructed. 12-month stoma-free survival was significantly better for patients undergoing primary anastomosis compared with Hartmann's procedure (94·6% [95% CI 88·7-100] vs 71·7% [95% CI 60·1-83·3], hazard ratio 2·79 [95% CI 1·86-4·18]; log-rank p<0·0001). There were no significant differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after the index procedure for Hartmann's procedure compared with primary anastomosis (morbidity: 29 [44%] of 66 patients vs 25 [39%] of 64, p=0·60; mortality: two [3%] vs four [6%], p=0·44). INTERPRETATION: In haemodynamically stable, immunocompetent patients younger than 85 years, primary anastomosis is preferable to Hartmann's procedure as a treatment for perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey III or Hinchey IV disease). FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Reducing colorectal anastomotic leakage with tissue adhesive in experimental inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage after gastrointestinal surgery remains a challenging clinical problem. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of TissuCol (fibrin glue), Histoacryl Flex (n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate), and Duraseal (polyethylene glycol) on colorectal anastomotic healing during experimental colitis. METHODS: We first performed colectomy 7 days after 10 mg trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid (TNBS)-induced colitis to validate a rat TNBS-colitis-colectomy model. Subsequently, this TNBS-colitis-colectomy model was used in 73 Wistar rats that were stratified into a colitis group (CG, no adhesive), a TissuCol group (TG), a Histoacryl group (HG), and a Duraseal group (DG). Anastomotic sealant was applied with one adhesive after constructing an end-to-end hand-sewn anastomosis. Clinical manifestations, anastomotic bursting pressure, and immunohistochemistry of macrophage type-one (M1) and type-two (M2) was performed on postoperative day (POD)3 or POD7. RESULTS: TNBS-caused mucosal and submucosal colon damage and compromised anastomotic healing (i.e., abscess formation and low anastomotic bursting pressure). On POD3, higher severity of abscesses was seen in CG. Average anastomotic bursting pressure was 53.2 ± 35.5 mm Hg in CG, which was significantly lower than HG (134.4 ± 27.5 mm Hg) and DG (95.1 ± 54.3 mm Hg) but not TG (83.4 ± 46.7 mm Hg). Furthermore, a significantly higher M2/M1 index was found in HG. On POD7, abscesses were only seen in CG (6/9) but not in other groups; HG had the lowest severity of adhesion. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the first surgical IBD model by performing colectomy in rats with TNBS-induced colitis, which causes intra-abdominal abscess formation and compromises anastomotic healing. Anastomotic sealing with Histoacryl Flex prevents these complications in this model. Alternative activation of macrophages seems to be involved in its influence on anastomotic healing.

Re-interventions following laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: data from 818 individuals from the Dutch surgical colorectal audit.

BACKGROUND: The surgical procedure of choice for the resection of colorectal cancer has shifted in favor of laparoscopic surgery. Although increasing data prove advantages of elective laparoscopic surgery, less is known about the results in acute indications such as surgical re-interventions following colorectal resections. This study aims to assess the clinical benefits in recovery following laparoscopic re-interventions compared with open re-interventions following laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We performed an analysis of data from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit from January 2010 to December 2012. All patients requiring surgical re-intervention after initial laparoscopic colorectal surgery were analyzed. RESULTS: Out of 27,448 patients, 11,856 underwent laparoscopic surgery. Following laparoscopic surgery, 159 patients (1.3%) had a laparoscopic re-intervention, and 659 patients (5.6%) had an open re-intervention. In a multivariable analysis adjusting for patients' demographics and risk factors, the length of hospital stay was 17 days (interquartile range, 11-16 days) for the laparoscopic group and 23 days (interquartile range, 14-37 days) for the open group (odds ratio [OR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.84). In the laparoscopic group the intensive care unit admission rate was 39% compared with 66% in the open group. The 30-day mortality rate was 7 (4%) in the laparoscopic group compared with 89 (14%) in the open group (OR=0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic re-intervention following laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is feasible in selected patients. Because of the unknown extent of selection bias, prospective studies are needed to define the exact position and benefits of laparoscopic re-interventions.

Surgical re-interventions following colorectal surgery: open versus laparoscopic management of anastomotic leakage.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of colorectal resections are performed laparoscopically each year. In 2010, 42% of all colorectal procedures in The Netherlands were performed laparoscopically. Although the anastomotic leakage rate is 3%-19% of all patients, little is known about laparoscopic options for re-intervention. Our study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic re-intervention compared with open surgery following colorectal surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who required a surgical re-intervention for an anastomotic leak, bowel perforation, or abscess after laparoscopic colorectal surgery between January 2008 and June 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic data, operative management, morbidity, hospital stay, and mortality were collected and analyzed for each patient. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included. Eighteen patients had a laparotomy following laparoscopy, and 38 patients had a laparoscopic re-intervention following laparoscopy. The median age was 65 years, with a median body mass index of 26 kg/m(2). Four patients had a previous laparotomy, and 73% had surgery for malignant colorectal disease. The length of hospital stay was 20 days in the laparoscopic group versus 31 days in the open group (P=.044). Six out of 38 versus 7 out of 18 patients required an additional re-intervention (P=.056). Fewer patients developed fascial dehiscence in the laparoscopic group (P=.033). In-hospital mortality was 4 out of 18 in the open group compared with 2 out of 38 in the laparoscopic group (P=.077). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic re-intervention could be a safe and feasible treatment for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. These promising results need to be further investigated in a prospective study to reduce uncertainty in the patient's condition and perioperative findings.