What are the differences between the three most used classifications for acute colonic diverticulitis? A comparative multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis is one of the most common clinical conditions encountered by surgeons in the acute setting. Currently, the most popular classifications, based on radiological findings, are the modified Hinchey, American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), and World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) classifications. We hypothesize that all classifications are equivalent in predicting outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 597 patients from four medical centers between 2014 and 2021. Based on clinical, radiological, and intraoperative findings, patients were graded according to the three classifications. Regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were used to compare six outcomes: need for intervention, complications, major complications (Clavien-Dindo >2), reintervention, hospital length of stay, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 597 patients were included. Need for intervention, morbidity, and reintervention rates significantly increased with increasing AAST, modified Hinchey, and WSES grades. The area under the curve (AUC) for the need for intervention was 0.84 for AAST and 0.81 for modified Hinchey ( p = 0.039). The AUC for major complications was 0.75 for modified Hinchey and 0.70 for WSES ( p = 0.009). No differences were found between the three classifications when comparing AUCs for mortality, complications, and reintervention rates. CONCLUSION: The AAST, WSES, and modified Hinchey classifications are similar in predicting complications, reintervention, and mortality rates. American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and modified Hinchey scores result the most adequate for predicting the need for surgery and the occurrence of major complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Hepatic Resection in Patients with Colo-Rectal Liver Metastases: Surgical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Single-Center Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical resection has a fundamental role in increasing the chance of survival in patients with colorectal liver metastases. The guidelines have been modified and expanded in time in order to increase the number of patients that can benefit from this treatment. The aim of this study is to analyze the main prognostic factors related to overall and disease-free survival of a series of consecutive patients undergoing liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM between April 2018 and September 2021 was performed. Clinical data and laboratory parameters were evaluated using the log-rank test. OS and DFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A retrospective study on 75 patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM was performed. The OS and DFS at 1 and 3 years were 84.3% and 63.8% for OS, 55.6% and 30.7% for DFS, respectively. From the analysis of the data, the most significant results indicate that: patients with a lower CEA value <25 ng/mL had an OS of 93.6% and 80.1% at 1 and 3 years, with an average of 36.7 months (CI 95% 33.1-40.3); moreover, patients with a value equal to or greater than 25 ng/mL had a 1-year survival equal to 57.4%, with an average of 13.8 months (CI 95% 9.4-18.2) (p < 0.001); adjuvant chemotherapy increases by 3 years the overall survival (OS: 68.6% vs. 49.7%) (p = 0.013); localization of the primary tumor affects OS, with a better prognosis for left colon metastases (OS at 42 months: 85.4% vs. 42.2%) (p value = 0.056); patients with stage T1 or T2 cancer have a better 3 years OS (92.9-100% vs. 49.7-56.3%) (p = 0.696), while the N0 stage results in both higher 3 years OS and DFS than the N + stages (OS: 87.5% vs. 68.5% vs. 24.5%); metachronous metastases have a higher 3 years OS than synchronous ones (80% vs. 47.4%) (p = 0.066); parenchymal sparing resections have a better 3 years DFS than anatomical ones (33.7% vs. 0%) (p = 0.067); a patient with a parenchymal R1 resection has a much worse prognosis than an R0 (3 years OS: 0% vs. 68.7%) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CEA value of less than 25 ng/mL, localization of the primary tumor in the left colon, primary tumor in stage T1/2 and N0, metachronous presentation, R0 resection, fewer than four metastases, and use of adjuvant chemotherapy are all parameters that in our analysis have shown a correlation with a better prognosis; moreover, the evaluation of the series is in line with the latest evidence in the literature in defining the non-inferiority of minimally invasive and parenchymal sparing treatment compared to the classic laparotomic approach with anatomic resection.

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage versus laparoscopic sigmoidectomy in complicated acute diverticulitis: a multicenter prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) is feasible in selected patients with pelvic abscess and generalized purulent peritonitis caused by acute diverticulitis. We aimed to compare LPL and laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (LS) in complicated acute diverticulitis. METHODS: This prospective, observational, multicenter study included patients with a pelvic abscess not amenable to conservative management and patients with Hinchey III acute diverticulitis, from 2015 to 2018. Sixty-six patients were enrolled: 28 (42%) underwent LPL and 38 (58%) underwent LS. In LS, patients had a primary anastomosis, with or without ileostomy, or an end colostomy (HA). Major outcomes were mortality, morbidity, failure of source control, reoperation, length of stay, and diverticulitis recurrence. RESULTS: Patient demographics were similar in the two groups. In LPL, ASA score > 2 and Mannheim Peritonitis Index were significantly higher (p = 0.05 and 0.004). In LS, 24 patients (63%) had a PA and 14 (37%) an HA. No death was recorded. Overall, morbidity was 33% in LPL and 18% in LS (p = 0.169). However, failure to achieve source control of the peritoneal infection and the need to return to the operating room were more frequent in LPL (p = 0.002 and p = 0.006). Mean postoperative length of stay was comparable (p = 0.08). Diverticular recurrence was significantly higher in LPL (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: LPL is related to a higher reoperation rate, more frequent postoperative ongoing sepsis, and higher recurrence rates. Therefore, laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis carries a high risk of failure in daily practice.

Management of colovesical and colovaginal diverticular fistulas Our experience and literature reviewed.

AIM: This study aims evaluate the effectiveness of various surgical techniques in treating diverticular fistulas, and the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic procedure comparing our results with those of the literature. MATERIAL OF STUDY: This was a prospective and uncontrolled study performed at a general surgery units. Between 2005 and 2011, 16 patients (11 men, 5 women) underwent surgery for diverticular fistulas. The mean age was 70.2 (range, 35-87) years. The medical evaluation of these patients was based on symptoms and diagnostic procedures confirming the diagnosis of diverticular fistulas. Our surgical options included one-stage, two-stage, and defunctioning procedures. RESULTS: Out of 16 cases of diverticular fistula 14 were colovesical and 2 colovaginal. One-stage procedure was performed in 12 patients, two-stage procedure in 3 and defunctioning colostomy in 1. The overall complication rate was 31.2%. We recorded 1 colovesical recurrent fistula. The laparoscopic surgery was performed in 4 patients, nobody was converted to open and there were no post-operative complications and recurrence. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The data show that one-stage procedure is effective in the majority of cases of diverticular fistulas. However, the surgery of colovesical and colovaginal fistulas is often associated to high complication rates. This is often due to the shoddy clinical conditions and long-term diverticular illness of this group of patients. At present, the laparoscopy in an elective setting is not considered any more a contraindication in the treatment of diverticular fistulas. KEY WORDS: Diverticular fistulas, Laparoscopic surgery.