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.

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.