-
International Journal of Colorectal... Sep 2012One of today's controversies remains the prevention of recurrent diverticulitis. Current guidelines advise a conservative approach, based on studies showing low... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM AND BACKGROUND
One of today's controversies remains the prevention of recurrent diverticulitis. Current guidelines advise a conservative approach, based on studies showing low recurrence rates and a high operative morbidity and mortality. Conservative measures in prevention recurrence are dietary advises and medical therapies, including probiotics and 5-aminosalicylic acid.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review is to assess whether medical or dietary therapies can prevent recurrent diverticulitis after a primary episode of acute diverticulitis. METHOD AND SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched different databases for papers published between January 1966 and January 2011.
STUDY SELECTION
Clinical studies were eligible for inclusion if they assessed the prevention of recurrent diverticulitis with a medical or dietary therapy. Exclusion criteria were studies without a control group.
RESULTS
Three randomized controlled trials (RCT), all with a Jadad quality score of 2 out of 5, were included in this systematic review. Mesalazine results in significantly less disease recurrence and fewer symptoms after an acute episode. The use of probiotics decreases symptoms but does not reduce recurrence. No difference in effect is seen when Balsalazide is added to probiotics compared to probiotics only. No relevant studies on dietary therapy/advices or antibiotics for prevention of recurrent diverticulitis were found.
CONCLUSION
The evidence that supports medical therapy to prevent recurrent diverticulitis is of poor quality. Treatment with 5-aminosalicylic acid seems promising. Based on current data, no recommendation of any non-operative relapse prevention therapy for diverticular disease can be made.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dietary Fiber; Diverticulitis; Humans; Mesalamine; Probiotics; Recurrence
PubMed: 22576905
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-012-1486-7 -
Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy &... Oct 2022Colovesical fistula (CVF) is a rare complication of sigmoid diverticulitis causing significant morbidity and quality of life impairment. Aim of this study was to analyze...
PURPOSE
Colovesical fistula (CVF) is a rare complication of sigmoid diverticulitis causing significant morbidity and quality of life impairment. Aim of this study was to analyze contemporary literature data to appraise the current standard of care and changes of treatment algorithms over time.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of the literature on surgical management of CVF was conducted through PUBMED, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement guidelines.
RESULTS
Fourteen papers published between 2014 and 2020 and including 1061 patients were analyzed. One-stage colonic resection with primary anastomosis, with or without loop ileostomy, was the most common surgical procedure. A laparoscopic or robotic approach was attempted in 39.5% of patients, and conversion rate to open surgery was 7.8%. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complication rate, 30-day mortality, and recurrence rate were 7.4%, 1.5%, and 0.5%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Minimally invasive sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis is safe and should be the first-choice approach for CVF. Bladder repair is not necessary after a negative intraoperative leak test. A standardized perioperative care can improve clinical outcomes and reduce the length of hospital stay and the duration of Foley catheterization.
Topics: Colon, Sigmoid; Conversion to Open Surgery; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Humans; Intestinal Fistula; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36044282
DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000001099 -
International Journal of Colorectal... May 2021Damage control surgery (DCS) is the classic approach to manage severe trauma and has recently also been considered an appropriate approach to the treatment of critically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Damage control surgery (DCS) is the classic approach to manage severe trauma and has recently also been considered an appropriate approach to the treatment of critically ill patients with severe intra-abdominal sepsis. The purpose of the present review is to evaluate the outcomes following DCS for Hinchey II-IV complicated acute diverticulitis (CAD).
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic search was undertaken to identify all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies, irrespectively of their size, publication status, and language. Adults who have undergone DCS for CAD Hinchey II, III, or IV were included in this review. DCS is compared with the immediate and definitive surgical treatment in the form of HP, colonic resection, and primary anastomosis (RPA) with or without covering stoma or laparoscopic lavage. We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge. The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was published on Prospero (CRD42020144953).
RESULTS
Nine studies with 318 patients, undergoing DCS, were included. The presence of septic shock at the presentation in the emergency department was heterogeneous, and the weighted mean rate of septic shock across the studies was shown to be 35.1% [95% CI 8.4 to 78.6%]. The majority of the patients had Hinchey III (68.3%) disease. The remainder had either Hinchey IV (28.9%) or Hinchey II (2.8%). Phase I is similarly described in most of the studies as lavage, limited resection with closed blind colonic ends. In a few studies, resection and anastomosis (9.1%) or suture of the perforation site (0.9%) were performed in phase I of DCS. In those patients who underwent DCS, the most common method of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) was the negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (97.8%). The RPA was performed in 62.1% [95% CI 40.8 to 83.3%] and the 22.7% [95% CI 15.1 to 30.3%]: 12.8% during phase I and 87.2% during phase III. A covering ileostomy was performed in 6.9% [95% CI 1.5 to 12.2%]. In patients with RPA, the overall leak was 7.3% [95% CI 4.3 to 10.4%] and the major anastomotic leaks were 4.7% [95% CI 2.0 to 7.4%]; the rate of postoperative mortality was estimated to be 9.2% [95% CI 6.0 to 12.4%].
CONCLUSIONS
The present meta-analysis revealed an approximately 62.1% weighted rate of achieving GI continuity with the DCS approach to generalized peritonitis in Hinchey III and IV with major leaks of 4.7% and overall mortality of 9.2%. Despite the promising results, we are aware of the limitations related to the significant heterogeneity of inclusion criteria. Importantly, the low rate of reported septic shock may point toward selection bias. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical advantages and cost-effectiveness of the DCS approach.
Topics: Adult; Anastomosis, Surgical; Diverticulitis; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Humans; Intestinal Perforation; Laparoscopy; Peritonitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33089382
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03784-8 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Jul 2018Diverticulitis is a common complication of diverticular disease of the colon. While complicated diverticulitis often warrants intervention, acute uncomplicated... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diverticulitis is a common complication of diverticular disease of the colon. While complicated diverticulitis often warrants intervention, acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (AUD) is usually managed conservatively. The aim of the present review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of conservative treatment of AUD without antibiotics compared to standard antibiotic treatment.
METHODS
A systematic literature review in compliance with PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Electronic databases including PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched. Studies that assessed efficacy and safety of treatment of AUD without antibiotics were included. Outcome parameters were rates of treatment failure, recurrence of diverticulitis, complications and mortality, readmission to hospital, and need for surgery.
RESULTS
Nine studies including 2565 patients were included to the review. Of these patients, 65.1% were treated conservatively without antibiotics. Treatment failure was observed in 5.1% of patients not-given-antibiotic treatment versus 3.4% of those given antibiotic treatment. Recurrent diverticulitis occurred in 9.3% of patients in the non-antibiotic group versus 12.1% of patients in the antibiotic group. On meta-analysis of the studies, there were no significant differences between non-antibiotic and antibiotic treatment groups regarding rates of treatment failure (OR = 1.5, p = 0.06), recurrence of diverticulitis (OR = 0.81, p = 0.2), complications (OR = 0.56, p = 0.25), readmission rates (OR = 0.97, p = 0.91), need for surgery (OR = 0.59, p = 0.28), and mortality (OR = 0.64, p = 0.47). The only variable that was significantly associated with treatment failure in the non-antibiotic treatment group was associated comorbidities (standard error (SE) = - 0.07, 95% CI - 0.117 - 0.032; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment of AUD without antibiotics is feasible, safe, and effective. Adding broad-spectrum antibiotics to the treatment regimen did not serve to decrease treatment failure, recurrence, complications, hospital readmissions, and need for surgery significantly compared to non-antibiotic treatment.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Conservative Treatment; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Readmission; Recurrence; Regression Analysis; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 29980885
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-018-1817-y -
International Journal of Colorectal... May 2017Several factors may influence the risk of recurrence after an episode of acute colonic diverticulitis. Until now, a comprehensive systematic overview and evaluation of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Several factors may influence the risk of recurrence after an episode of acute colonic diverticulitis. Until now, a comprehensive systematic overview and evaluation of relevant risk factors have not been presented. This review aimed at assembling and evaluating current evidence on risk factors for recurrence after conservatively treated acute colonic diverticulitis.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies evaluating risk factors for recurrence after acute diverticulitis treated non-surgically defined as antibiotic treatment, percutaneous abscess drainage, or by observation. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Analyzed outcome variables were extracted and grouped. No meta-analysis was performed due to low inter-study comparability. Variables were rated according to their likelihood of causing recurrence (no/low, medium, high).
RESULTS
Of 1153 screened records, 35 studies were included, enrolling 396,676 patients with acute diverticulitis. A total of 50,555 patients experienced recurrences. Primary diverticulitis with abscess formation and young age increased the risk of recurrence. Readmission risk was higher within the first year after remission. In addition, the risk of subsequent diverticulitis more than doubled after two earlier episodes of diverticulitis and the risk increased further for every episode.
CONCLUSIONS
The best treatment strategy for recurrent diverticulitis is undetermined. However, the risk of a new recurrence seemed to increase after each recurrence making elective resection a viable option at some point after multiple recurrences depending on patient risk factors and preferences.
Topics: Abscess; Acute Disease; Adult; Aged; Body Mass Index; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Female; Humans; Inflammation; Male; Middle Aged; Recurrence; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 28110383
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-017-2766-z -
Techniques in Coloproctology Feb 2019In Western countries, the incidence of acute diverticulitis (AD) is increasing. Patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis can undergo a standard antibiotic treatment in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In Western countries, the incidence of acute diverticulitis (AD) is increasing. Patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis can undergo a standard antibiotic treatment in an outpatient setting. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the safety and efficacy of the management of acute diverticulitis in an outpatient setting.
METHODS
A literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Central and Web of Science up to September 2018. Studies including patients who had outpatient management of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis were considered. We manually checked the reference lists of all included studies to identify any additional studies. Primary outcome was the overall failure rates in the outpatient setting. The failure of outpatient setting was defined as any emergency hospital admission in patients who had outpatient treatment for AD in the previous 60 days. A subgroup analysis of failure was performed in patients with AD of the left colon, with or without comorbidities, with previous episodes of AD, in patients with diabetes, with different severity of AD (pericolic air and abdominal abscess), with or without antibiotic treatment, with ambulatory versus home care unit follow-up, with or without protocol and where outpatient management is a common practice. The secondary outcome was the rate of emergency surgical treatment or percutaneous drainage in patients who failed outpatient treatment.
RESULTS
This systematic review included 21 studies including 1781 patients who had outpatient management of AD including 11 prospective, 9 retrospective and only 1 randomized trial. The meta-analysis showed that outpatient management is safe, and the overall failure rate in an outpatient setting was 4.3% (95% CI 2.6%-6.3%). Localization of diverticulitis is not a selection criterion for an outpatient strategy (p 0.512). The other subgroup analyses did not report any factors that influence the rate of failure: previous episodes of acute diverticulitis (p = 0.163), comorbidities (p = 0.187), pericolic air (p = 0.653), intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.326), treatment according to a registered protocol (p = 0.078), type of follow-up (p = 0.700), type of antibiotic treatment (p = 0.647) or diabetes (p = 0.610). In patients who failed outpatient treatment, the majority had prolonged antibiotic therapy and only few had percutaneous drainage for an abscess (0.13%) or surgical intervention for perforation (0.06%). These results should be interpreted with some caution because of the low quality of available data.
CONCLUSIONS
The outpatient management of AD can reduce the rate of emergency hospitalizations. This setting is already part of the common clinical practice of many emergency departments, in which a standardized protocol is followed. The data reported suggest that this management is safe if associated with an accurate selection of patients (40%); but no subgroup analysis demonstrated significant differences between groups (such as comorbidities, previous episode, diabetes). The main limitations of the findings of the present review concern their applicability in common clinical practice as it was impossible to identify strict criteria of failure.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Ambulatory Care; Diverticulitis; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30684110
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-018-1919-6 -
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum Mar 2020Acute diverticulitis is a common disease with public health significance. Many studies with a high level of evidence have been published recently on the surgical...
BACKGROUND
Acute diverticulitis is a common disease with public health significance. Many studies with a high level of evidence have been published recently on the surgical management of acute diverticulitis.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to define the accurate surgical management of acute diverticulitis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were sources used.
STUDY SELECTION
One reviewer conducted a systematic study with combinations of key words for the disease and the surgical procedure. Additional studies were searched in the reference lists of all included articles. The results of the systematic review were submitted to a working group composed of 13 practitioners. All of the conclusions were obtained by full consensus and validated by an external committee.
INTERVENTIONS
The interventions assessed were laparoscopic peritoneal lavage, primary resection with anastomosis with or without ileostomy, and the Hartmann procedure, with either a laparoscopic or an open approach.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Morbidity, mortality, long-term stoma rates, and quality of life were measured.
RESULTS
Seventy-one articles were included. Five guidelines were retrieved, along with 4 meta-analyses, 14 systematic reviews, and 5 randomized controlled trials that generated 8 publications, all with a low risk of bias, except for blinding. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage showed concerning results of deep abscesses and unplanned reoperations. Studies on Hinchey III/IV diverticulitis showed similar morbidity and mortality. A reduced length of stay with Hartmann procedure compared with primary resection with anastomosis was reported in the short term, and in the long term, more definite stoma along with poorer quality of life was reported with Hartmann procedure. No high-quality data were found to support the laparoscopic approach.
LIMITATIONS
Trials specifically assessing Hinchey IV diverticulitis have not yet been completed.
CONCLUSIONS
High-quality studies showed that laparoscopic peritoneal lavage was associated with an increased morbidity and that Hartmann procedure was associated with poorer long-term outcomes than primary resection with anastomosis with ileostomy, but Hartmann procedure is still acceptable, especially in high-risk patients.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anastomosis, Surgical; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Diverticulitis; Emergencies; Humans; Laparoscopy; Peritoneal Lavage
PubMed: 30694823
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001327 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2011Diverticula (mucosal outpouching through the wall of the colon) are rare before the age of 40 years, after which prevalence increases steadily and reaches over 25% by 60... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Diverticula (mucosal outpouching through the wall of the colon) are rare before the age of 40 years, after which prevalence increases steadily and reaches over 25% by 60 years. However, only 10% to 25% of affected people will develop symptoms such as lower abdominal pain. Recurrent symptoms are common, and 5% of people with diverticula eventually develop complications such as perforation, obstruction, haemorrhage, fistulae, or abscesses.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of: treatments for uncomplicated diverticular disease; treatments to prevent complications; and treatments for acute diverticulitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 16 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antispasmodics, elective surgery, increasing fibre intake with bran or ispaghula husk, lactulose, medical treatment, mesalazine, methylcellulose, rifaximin, and surgery.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Acute Disease; Dietary Fiber; Diverticulitis; Diverticulosis, Colonic; Diverticulum; Humans
PubMed: 21401970
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology Oct 2016Symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD) is a common gastrointestinal disease, because it affects about one fourth of the patient harboring colonic... (Review)
Review
Mesalazine for the Treatment of Symptomatic Uncomplicated Diverticular Disease of the Colon and for Primary Prevention of Diverticulitis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials.
BACKGROUND
Symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD) is a common gastrointestinal disease, because it affects about one fourth of the patient harboring colonic diverticula.
GOAL
To assess the effectiveness of mesalazine in improving symptoms (namely abdominal pain) and in preventing diverticulitis occurrence in patients with SUDD.
STUDY
Only randomized clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) that compared mesalazine with placebo or any other therapy in SUDD were evaluated. The selected endpoints were symptom relief and diverticulitis occurrence at maximal follow-up. Absolute risk reduction (ARR, with 95% confidence interval) and the number needed to treat were used as measures of the therapeutic effect.
RESULTS
Six randomized clinical trials enrolled 1021 patients: 526 patients were treated with mesalazine and 495 with placebo or other therapies. Symptom relief with mesalazine was always larger than that with placebo and other therapies. However, absolute risk reduction was significant only when mesalazine was compared with placebo, a high-fiber diet, and low-dose rifaximin. The incidence of diverticulitis with mesalazine was lower than that observed with placebo and other treatments, being significant only when compared with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Mesalazine is effective in achieving symptom relief and primary prevention of diverticulitis in patients with SUDD.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Diverticulosis, Colonic; Female; Humans; Male; Mesalamine; Middle Aged; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27622370
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000669 -
Intestinal Research Oct 2023Immunocompromised patients with acute colonic diverticulitis are at high risk for complications and failure of non-surgical treatment. However, evidence on the...
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Immunocompromised patients with acute colonic diverticulitis are at high risk for complications and failure of non-surgical treatment. However, evidence on the comparative outcomes of immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients with diverticulitis is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the outcomes of medical treatment in immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients with diverticulitis.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing the clinical outcomes of immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients with diverticulitis were included.
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies with 1,946,461 subjects were included in the quantitative synthesis. The risk of emergency surgery and postoperative mortality after emergency surgery was significantly higher in immunocompromised patients than in immunocompetent patients with diverticulitis (risk ratio [RR], 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-2.38 and RR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.70-5.45, respectively). Overall risk of complications associated with diverticulitis was non-significantly higher in immunocompromised than in immunocompetent patients (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.95-1.63). Overall mortality irrespective of surgery was significantly higher in immunocompromised than in immunocompetent patients with diverticulitis (RR, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.73-7.69). By contrast, postoperative mortality after elective surgery was not significantly different between immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients with diverticulitis. In subgroup analysis, the risk of emergency surgery and recurrence was significantly higher in immunocompromised patients with complicated diverticulitis, whereas no significant difference was shown in mild disease.
CONCLUSIONS
Immunocompromised patients with diverticulitis should be given the best medical treatment with multidisciplinary approach because they had increased risks of surgery, postoperative morbidity, and mortality than immunocompetent patients.
PubMed: 37248174
DOI: 10.5217/ir.2023.00005