Transvaginal hybrid-NOTES vs. traditional laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticulitis: a short-term comparative study.

The aim was to compare short-term results of transvaginal hybrid-NOTES (NSR) with traditional laparoscopic technique in sigmoid resection (LSR) in cases of diverticulitis. Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery has been evolved as a minimally invasive procedure to reduce the operative trauma due to the absence of specimen extraction through the abdominal wall causing less postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stay. Despite the increasing use and published case series of NSR for diverticulitis as a laparoscopic procedure with transvaginal stapling and specimen extraction, there are no studies comparing this procedure with LSR. Twenty NSR patients operated at the Cologne-Merheim Medical Center have been documented and compared with 20 female LSR patients matched for body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists-classification (ASA), Hansen/Stock classification, and age. To ensure comparability regarding peri- and postoperative care, only procedures performed by the same surgeon were included. Procedural time, intra- and postoperative complications, conversion rate, postoperative pain, the duration of an epidural catheter, analgesic consumption, and postoperative length of hospital stay were analyzed. There were no significant differences in the sum of pain levels (p = 0.930), length of procedure (p = 0.079), intra- and postoperative complications, as well as duration of an epidural catheter. On the contrary, there were significant positive effects for NSR on morphine requirement at day seven and eight (p = 0.019 and p = 0.035 respectively) as well as the postoperative length of hospital stay (p = 0.031). This retrospective study reveals significant positive effects for NSR compared to LSR regarding length of hospital stay as well as morphine consumption after removal of the epidural catheter, whereas there were no significant differences in complication rate and procedural time. In summary, NSR is an adequate alternative to traditional laparoscopic sigmoid resection considering the surgeons experience and the patient's personal preferences.

Laparoscopic versus open resection for sigmoid diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Diverticular disease is a common condition in Western industrialised countries. Most individuals remain asymptomatic throughout life; however, 25% experience acute diverticulitis. The standard treatment for acute diverticulitis is open surgery. Laparoscopic surgery - a minimal-access procedure - offers an alternative approach to open surgery, as it is characterised by reduced operative stress that may translate into shorter hospitalisation and more rapid recovery, as well as improved quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgical resection compared with open surgical resection for individuals with acute sigmoid diverticulitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 23 February 2017); Ovid Embase (1974 to 23 February 2017); clinicaltrials.gov (February 2017); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry (February 2017). We reviewed the bibliographies of identified trials to search for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing elective or emergency laparoscopic sigmoid resection versus open surgical resection for acute sigmoid diverticulitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the domains of risk of bias from each included trial, and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we planned to calculate mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for outcomes such as hospital stay, and standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs for quality of life and global rating scales, if researchers used different scales. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials with 392 participants met the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in three European countries (Switzerland, Netherlands, and Germany). The median age of participants ranged from 62 to 66 years; 53% to 64% were female. Inclusion criteria differed among studies. One trial included participants with Hinchey I characteristics as well as those who underwent Hartmann's procedure; the second trial included only participants with "a proven stage II/III disease according to the classification of Stock and Hansen"; the third trial considered for inclusion patients with "diverticular disease of sigmoid colon documented by colonoscopy and 2 episodes of uncomplicated diverticulitis, one at least being documented with CT scan, 1 episode of complicated diverticulitis, with a pericolic abscess (Hinchey stage I) or pelvic abscess (Hinchey stage II) requiring percutaneous drainage."We determined that two studies were at low risk of selection bias; two that reported considerable dropouts were at high risk of attrition bias; none reported blinding of outcome assessors (unclear detection bias); and all were exposed to performance bias owing to the nature of the intervention.Available low-quality evidence suggests that laparoscopic surgical resection may lead to little or no difference in mean hospital stay compared with open surgical resection (3 studies, 360 participants; MD -0.62 (days), 95% CI -2.49 to 1.25; I² = 0%).Low-quality evidence suggests that operating time was longer in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the open surgery group (3 studies, 360 participants; MD 49.28 (minutes), 95% CI 40.64 to 57.93; I² = 0%).We are uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative pain between day 1 and day 3 more effectively than open surgery. Low-quality evidence suggests that laparoscopic surgery may improve postoperative pain at the fourth postoperative day more effectively than open surgery (2 studies, 250 participants; MD = -0.65, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.25).Researchers reported quality of life differently across trials, hindering the possibility of meta-analysis. Low-quality evidence from one trial using the Short Form (SF)-36 questionnaire six weeks after surgery suggests that laparoscopic intervention may improve quality of life, whereas evidence from two other trials using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) v3 and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index score, respectively, suggests that laparoscopic surgery may make little or no difference in improving quality of life compared with open surgery.We are uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery improves the following outcomes: 30-day postoperative mortality, early overall morbidity, major and minor complications, surgical complications, postoperative times to liquid and solid diets, and reoperations due to anastomotic leak. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from the present comprehensive review indicate that evidence to support or refute the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgical resection for treatment of patients with acute diverticular disease is insufficient. Well-designed trials with adequate sample size are needed to investigate the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery towards important patient-oriented (e.g. postoperative pain) and health system-oriented outcomes (e.g. mean hospital stay).

Laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease has no advantages over open approach: midterm results of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection (LSR) for symptomatic diverticular disease is supposed to have significant short-term advantages compared to open surgery (open sigmoid resection (OSR)). This opinion is rather based on inferences from trials on colonic resections for malignant diseases or minor laparoscopic surgery. This randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare quality of life as well as morbidity and clinical outcome after LSR vs. OSR following a midterm follow-up period. METHODS: Patients presenting with a symptomatic sigmoid diverticular disease stage II/III (Stock/Hansen) were randomly allocated to LSR or OSR in a prospective multicenter trial. Endpoints included the quality of life assessed with a standardized questionnaire, postoperative mortality, and complications within the follow-up of 12 months after operation. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients randomized between 2005 and 2008 in 12 centers could be analyzed. The recruitment was aborted for nonachievement of the planned sample size. Seventy-five patients were allocated to LSR, and 68 received OSR. Nine operations were converted to OSR (9%) and analyzed as intention to treat. Groups were comparable for age, gender, body mass index, comorbidity, and indication for surgery. Operation time was longer for LSR (p < 0.001). Quality of life did not differ between LSR and OSR, either during the early postoperative course or after 12 months (p = 0.172). Also, mortality and morbidity, including subgroups of major and minor morbidity, were compared. CONCLUSION: LSR was not superior to OSR regarding postoperative quality of life and incidence of complications in this trial.