-
Annals of Surgery Apr 2017To compare the outcomes of laparoscopic lavage and sigmoid resection in perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the outcomes of laparoscopic lavage and sigmoid resection in perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis.
BACKGROUND
Peritonitis secondary to perforated diverticulitis has conventionally been managed by resection and stoma formation. Case series have suggested that patients can be safely managed with laparoscopic lavage, resulting in reduced mortality and stoma formation. Recently, 3 randomized controlled trials have published contradictory conclusions.
METHODS
MEDLINE from 1946 to present, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane database of Registered clinical trials and EMBASE (all via OVID) were searched using the terms "laparoscopy" AND ("primary resection" OR "Hartmann procedure", OR "sigmoidectomy"), AND "Diverticulitis", AND "Peritonitis" AND "therapeutic irrigation" or "lavage" AND randomized controlled trial and any derivatives of those terms. We included all randomized controlled trials. Data were extracted from each study using a purpose-designed template. Statistical analysis was undertaken using Revman 5.
RESULTS
Three randomized controlled trials were identified from 48 potential studies. The analysis included 307 patients of whom 159 underwent laparoscopic lavage. Overall, the rate of reintervention within 30 days postoperatively was 45/159 (28.3%) in the lavage group and 13/148 (8.8%) in the resection group (relative risk 3.01, 95% confidence interval 1.15-7.90). There was no significant difference in Intensive Care Unit admissions, 30 and 90-day mortality, or stoma rates at 12 months.
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic lavage used in the management of Hinchey grade III diverticulitis leads to more reinterventions within 30 days postoperatively, but does not increase the 30 or 90-day mortality rates compared with sigmoid resection.
Topics: Diverticulitis; Diverticulum, Colon; Female; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Peritoneal Lavage; Peritonitis; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Severity of Illness Index; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27631772
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002005 -
Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced... Feb 2020Although gastric carcinoma is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer, optimal treatment of perforated cancer remains debated. The study was conducted according to...
Although gastric carcinoma is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer, optimal treatment of perforated cancer remains debated. The study was conducted according to the guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. An electronic systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science) by matching the terms "perforated gastric cancer," "gastric cancer perforated," "perforation AND gastric cancer," and "perforated gastric tumor." Fifteen studies published between 1995 and 2018 and including 964 patients matched the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. There were 4 publications from Japan, 3 from Turkey, and 1 from China, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Nepal, Serbia, South Korea, and Taiwan, respectively. The sample size of the individual studies ranged from 8 to 514 patients. Perforated gastric carcinoma was rare and more prevalent in elderly males, preoperative diagnosis was uncommon, and the distal stomach was most frequently involved. Mortality was 11.4% and 1.9%, respectively, in one-stage versus two-stage gastrectomy ( = .010). Curative treatment by omental patch repair and staged gastrectomy yielded acceptable 5-year survival rates. There were no significant differences in the recurrence rate and pattern between perforated and nonperforated gastric cancer if a curative operation was performed. Use of laparoscopy was mentioned only in one study. Future studies should evaluate the role of laparoscopic surgery and clarify the indications for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and extensive peritoneal lavage protocols to decrease gastric cancer cell shed in the surgical field and increase long-term survival.
Topics: Gastrectomy; Humans; Hyperthermia, Induced; Laparoscopy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Peritoneal Lavage; Peritonitis; Prevalence; Prognosis; Recurrence; Stomach Neoplasms; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31545122
DOI: 10.1089/lap.2019.0507 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2008Peritonitis is a common complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and is associated with significant morbidity. Adequate treatment is essential to reduce morbidity and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peritonitis is a common complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and is associated with significant morbidity. Adequate treatment is essential to reduce morbidity and recurrence.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of treatments for PD-associated peritonitis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists without language restriction. Date of search: February 2005
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the treatment of peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients (adults and children) evaluating: administration of an antibiotic(s) by different routes (e.g. oral, intraperitoneal, intravenous); dose of an antibiotic agent(s); different schedules of administration of antimicrobial agents; comparisons of different regimens of antimicrobial agents; any other intervention including fibrinolytic agents, peritoneal lavage and early catheter removal were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted data on study quality and outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the dichotomous results were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 36 studies (2089 patients): antimicrobial agents (30); urokinase (4), peritoneal lavage (1) intraperitoneal (IP) immunoglobulin (1). No superior antibiotic agent or combination of agents were identified. Primary response and relapse rates did not differ between IP glycopeptide-based regimens compared to first generation cephalosporin regimens, although glycopeptide regimens were more likely to achieve a complete cure (3 studies, 370 episodes: RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.58). For relapsing or persistent peritonitis, simultaneous catheter removal/replacement was superior to urokinase at reducing treatment failure rates (1 study, 37 patients: RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.91). Continuous IP and intermittent IP antibiotic dosing had similar treatment failure and relapse rates. IP antibiotics were superior to IV antibiotics in reducing treatment failure (1 study, 75 patients: RR 3.52, 95% CI 1.26 to 9.81). The methodological quality of most included studies was suboptimal and outcome definitions were often inconsistent. There were no RCTs regarding duration of antibiotics or timing of catheter removal.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on one study, IP administration of antibiotics is superior to IV dosing for treating PD peritonitis. Intermittent and continuous dosing of antibiotics are equally efficacious. There is no role shown for routine peritoneal lavage or use of urokinase. No interventions were found to be associated with significant harm.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Fibrinolytic Agents; Humans; Immunoglobulins; Infusions, Parenteral; Injections, Intravenous; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritoneal Lavage; Peritonitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urokinase-Type Plasminogen Activator
PubMed: 18254075
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005284.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries significant mortality, morbidity, and resource use. There is considerable uncertainty as to how people with necrotising... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries significant mortality, morbidity, and resource use. There is considerable uncertainty as to how people with necrotising pancreatitis should be treated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of different interventions in people with acute necrotising pancreatitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to April 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCT). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only RCTs performed in people with necrotising pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager 5 based on an available-case analysis using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We planned a network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods, but due to sparse data and uncertainty about the transitivity assumption, performed only indirect comparisons and used Frequentist methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with 311 participants in this review. After exclusion of five participants, we included 306 participants in one or more outcomes. Five trials (240 participants) investigated the three main treatments: open necrosectomy (121 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (80 participants), and peritoneal lavage (39 participants) and were included in the network meta-analysis. Three trials (66 participants) investigated the variations in the main treatments: early open necrosectomy (25 participants), delayed open necrosectomy (11 participants), video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach (12 participants), endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach (10 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (planned surgery) (four participants), and minimally invasive step-up approach (continued percutaneous drainage) (four participants). The trials included infected or sterile necrotising pancreatitis of varied aetiology.All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all the outcomes. Overall, short-term mortality was 30% and serious adverse events rate was 139 serious adverse events per 100 participants. The differences in short-term mortality and proportion of people with serious adverse events were imprecise in all the comparisons. The number of serious adverse events and adverse events were fewer in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (serious adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study; adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study). The proportion of people with organ failure and the mean costs were lower in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (organ failure: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.60; 88 participants; 1 study; mean difference in costs: USD -11,922; P value < 0.05; 88 participants; 1 studies). There were more adverse events with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group (rate ratio 11.70, 95% CI 1.52 to 89.87; 22 participants; 1 study), but the number of interventions per participant was less with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach group (difference in medians: 2 procedures; P value < 0.05; 20 participants; 1 study). The differences in any of the other comparisons for number of serious adverse events, proportion of people with organ failure, number of adverse events, length of hospital stay, and intensive therapy unit stay were either imprecise or were not consistent. None of the trials reported long-term mortality, infected pancreatic necrosis (trials that included participants with sterile necrosis), health-related quality of life at any time frame, proportion of people with adverse events, requirement for additional invasive intervention, time to return to normal activity, and time to return to work.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low to very low quality evidence suggested that the minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events, serious adverse events, less organ failure, and lower costs compared to open necrosectomy. Very low quality evidence suggested that the endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events than the video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach but increased the number of procedures required for treatment. There is currently no evidence to suggest that early open necrosectomy is superior or inferior to peritoneal lavage or delayed open necrosectomy. However, the CIs were wide and significant benefits or harms of different treatments cannot be ruled out. The TENSION trial currently underway in Netherlands is assessing the optimal way to perform the minimally invasive step-up approach (endoscopic drainage followed by endoscopic necrosectomy if necessary versus percutaneous drainage followed by video-assisted necrosectomy if necessary) and is assessing important clinical outcomes of interest for this review. Implications for further research on this topic will be determined after the results of this RCT are available.
Topics: Humans; Necrosis; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Peritoneal Lavage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Video-Assisted Surgery
PubMed: 27083933
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011383.pub2 -
Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy &... Apr 2017Diverticular disease is a first-class health care problem and one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders in western industrialized countries, causing significant... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIM
Diverticular disease is a first-class health care problem and one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders in western industrialized countries, causing significant morbidity and mortality. In this review of the literature, we aim to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the laparoscopic approach in both elective and emergency setting of diverticular disease.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A bibliographic search of articles was performed using the electronic database Medline from PubMed. Of 341 articles identified, 279 were excluded, resulting in 62 full-text articles for review. Our final review included 16 articles.
RESULTS
The 16 articles included in the final review consisted of 6 retrospective studies, 5 prospective studies, 2 randomized controlled trials, 1 systematic review and meta-analysis, and 2 systematic reviews. Seven articles considered elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection, 7 articles evaluated laparoscopic peritoneal lavage, and 2 articles considered emergency laparoscopic sigmoid resection for perforated diverticulitis. The elective laparoscopic approach is feasible and safe. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage has emerged as a safe and effective minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of perforated diverticulitis. Furthermore, in selected patients, emergency laparoscopic sigmoidectomy could also be feasible for perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis.
CONCLUSIONS
Laparoscopic approach can be a safe and effective option in both elective and emergency setting of diverticular disease. Large, prospective, randomized studies should be conducted to confirm these findings.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Elective Surgical Procedures; Emergency Treatment; Epidemiologic Methods; Humans; Laparoscopy; Middle Aged; Young Adult
PubMed: 28212260
DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000386 -
Oncotarget Nov 2015Despite continuously improving therapies, gastric cancer still shows poor survival in locally advanced stages with local recurrence rates of up to 50% and peritoneal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Despite continuously improving therapies, gastric cancer still shows poor survival in locally advanced stages with local recurrence rates of up to 50% and peritoneal recurrence rates of 17% after curative surgery. We performed a systematic review with meta-analyses to clarify whether positive intraperitoneal cytology (IPC) indicates a high risk of disease recurrence and poor overall survival in gastric cancer.
METHODS
Multiple databases were searched in December 2014 to identify studies on the prognostic significance of positive intraperitoneal cytology in gastric cancer, including: Medline, Biosis, Science Citation Index, Embase, CCMed and publisher databases. Hazard ratios (HR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted from the identified studies. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model on overall survival, disease-free survival and peritoneal recurrence free survival.
RESULTS
A total of 64 studies with a cumulative sample size of 12,883 patients were included. Cytology, quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or both were performed in 35; 21 and 8 studies, respectively. Meta analyses revealed free intraperitoneal tumor cells (FITC) to be associated with poor overall survival in univariate (HR 3.27; 95% CI 2.82 - 3.78]) and multivariate (HR 2.45; 95% CI 2.04 - 2.94) analysis and poor peritoneal recurrence free survival in univariate (4.15; 95% CI 3.10 - 5.57) and multivariate (3.09; 95% CI 2.02 - 4.71) analysis. Subgroup analysis showed this effect to be independent of the detection method, Western or Asian origin or the time of publication.
CONCLUSIONS
FITC oder positive peritoneal cytology is associated with poor survival and increased peritoneal recurrence in gastric cancer.
Topics: Animals; Histological Techniques; Humans; Peritoneum; Prognosis; Stomach Neoplasms; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26384352
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.5595 -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) Dec 2016Intraperitoneal free cancer cells in gastric adenocarcinoma are associated with a poor outcome. However, the true prognostic value of intraperitoneal free cancer cells... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Intraperitoneal free cancer cells in gastric adenocarcinoma are associated with a poor outcome. However, the true prognostic value of intraperitoneal free cancer cells is still unclear, leading to a lack of consensus in the management of gastric cancer. The aim of the present study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze intraperitoneal free cancer cells-positive patients with regard to tumor oncologic stage, recurrence, grade of cellular differentiation, and survival rates and to analyze the clinical significance of intraperitoneal free cancer cells with regard to prognosis. Databases were searched up to January 2016 for prognostic factors associated with intraperitoneal free cancer cells, including oncologic stage, depth of neoplasm invasion, lymph nodal spread, differentiation grade of the tumor, and recurrence and survival rates. A total of 100 studies were identified. Meta-analysis revealed a clear association between intraperitoneal free cancer cells and a poor prognosis. intraperitoneal free cancer cells -positive patients had higher rates of nodal spread (risk difference: 0.29; p<0.01), serosal invasion (risk difference: 0.43; p<0.01), recurrence (after 60 months of follow-up, risk difference: 0.44; p<0.01), and mortality (after 60 months of follow-up, risk difference: 0.34; p<0.01). Intraperitoneal free cancer cells are associated with a poor outcome in gastric cancer. This surrogate biomarker should be used to guide therapy both prior to and after surgery.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Gastric Lavage; Humans; Lymphatic Metastasis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Peritoneal Cavity; Prognosis; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Assessment; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 28076519
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2016(12)10 -
Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and... Jan 2022The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of peritoneal washing cytology (PWC) on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Is there a correlation of positive peritoneal washing cytology during interval debulking surgery on the survival outcomes of ovarian cancer patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of peritoneal washing cytology (PWC) on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients undergoing interval debulking surgery (IDS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for ovarian cancer (OC).
METHODS
We systematically searched Medline (1966-2020), Scopus (2004-2020), EMBASE (1980-2020), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL (1999-2020), Clinicaltrials.gov (2008-2020) and Google Scholar (2004-2020). All the studies that investigated the correlation of peritoneal washing cytology with survival outcomes of patients undergoing interval debulking for ovarian cancer, were finally included in the present meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 7 retrospective studies were included, comprising 907 patients, of whom 535 had positive peritoneal washing cytology on interval debulking surgery. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed as moderate, primarily due to the lack of data referring to the adequacy of the follow-up of patients and secondarily due the lack of comparability of patients. Progression - free survival was significantly better in the negative peritoneal cytology group (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.73, 2.48 respectively), however, overall survival did not reach a significant difference among the two groups (HR 1.90, 95% CI 0.99, 3,65, p = 0.052).
CONCLUSIONS
Our data support a negative correlation between positive peritoneal washing cytology at interval debulking surgery and the survival of ovarian cancer patients.
Topics: Adult; Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Ovarian Neoplasms; Peritoneal Lavage; Prognosis; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34678477
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102256 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2014Peritonitis is a common complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) that is associated with significant morbidity including death, hospitalisation, and need to change from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Peritonitis is a common complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) that is associated with significant morbidity including death, hospitalisation, and need to change from PD to haemodialysis. Treatment is aimed to reduce morbidity and recurrence. This is an update of a review first published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of treatments for PD-associated peritonitis.
SEARCH METHODS
For this review update we searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to March 2014 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, and handsearching conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the treatment of peritonitis in PD patients (adults and children). We included any study that evaluated: administration of an antibiotic by different routes (e.g. oral, intraperitoneal (IP), intravenous (IV)); dose of an antibiotic agent; different schedules of administration of antimicrobial agents; comparisons of different regimens of antimicrobial agents; any other intervention including fibrinolytic agents, peritoneal lavage and early catheter removal.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Multiple authors independently extracted data on study risk of bias and outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model. We expressed summarised treatment estimates as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 42 eligible studies in 2433 participants: antimicrobial agents (36 studies); urokinase (4 studies), peritoneal lavage (1 study), and IP immunoglobulin (1 study). We did not identify any optimal antibiotic agent or combination of agents. IP glycopeptides (vancomycin or teicoplanin) had uncertain effects on primary treatment response, relapse rates, and need for catheter removal compared to first generation cephalosporins, although glycopeptide regimens were more likely to achieve a complete cure (3 studies, 370 episodes: RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.72). For relapsing or persistent peritonitis, simultaneous catheter removal and replacement was better than urokinase at reducing treatment failure rates (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.91) although evidence was limited to a single small study. Continuous and intermittent IP antibiotic dosing schedules had similar treatment failure and relapse rates. IP antibiotics were superior to IV antibiotics in reducing treatment failure in one small study (RR 3.52, 95% CI 1.26 to 9.81). Longer duration treatment (21 days of IV vancomycin and IP gentamicin) had uncertain effects on risk of treatment relapse compared with 10 days treatment (1 study, 49 patients: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.95) although may have increased ototoxicity.In general, review conclusions were based on a small number of studies with few events in which risk of bias was generally high; interventions were heterogeneous, and outcome definitions were often inconsistent. There were no RCTs evaluating optimal timing of catheter removal and data for automated PD were absent.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Many of the studies evaluating treatment of PD-related peritonitis are small, out-dated, of poor quality, and had inconsistent definitions and dosing regimens. IP administration of antibiotics was superior to IV administration for treating PD-associated peritonitis and glycopeptides appear optimal for complete cure of peritonitis, although evidence for this finding was assessed as low quality. PD catheter removal may be the best treatment for relapsing or persistent peritonitis.Evidence was insufficient to identify the optimal agent, route or duration of antibiotics to treat peritonitis. No specific antibiotic appears to have superior efficacy for preventing treatment failure or relapse of peritonitis, but evidence is limited to few trials. The role of routine peritoneal lavage or urokinase is uncertain.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Administration Routes; Fibrinolytic Agents; Humans; Immunoglobulins; Infusions, Parenteral; Injections, Intravenous; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritoneal Lavage; Peritonitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urokinase-Type Plasminogen Activator
PubMed: 24771351
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005284.pub3 -
International Journal of Surgery... Nov 2019Diverticulitis is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases in western population. Colonic resection is recommended by international guidelines as a routinely... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diverticulitis is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases in western population. Colonic resection is recommended by international guidelines as a routinely used technique for purulent diverticulitis. Laparoscopic lavage was introduced as a non-resection alternative. The studies available so far have shown contradictory results. This meta-analysis aims to compare laparoscopic lavage versus colonic resection in patients with Hinchey Ⅲ-Ⅳ diverticulitis.
METHODS
We did a systematic review of articles published before March 20, 2019, with no language restriction by searching PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE databases, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases. We included all RCTs and cohort studies comparing outcomes between patients with Hinchey Ⅲ-Ⅳ diverticulitis undergoing laparoscopic lavage versus colonic resection. Important outcomes were mortality, complications, length of stay, readmission and reoperation rates. We combined data to assess the outcomes using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 569 patients with diverticulitis of which more than 80% were Hinchey Ⅲ were enrolled from 3 RCTs and 5 cohort studies. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with shorter operative time (WMD -78.9, 95%CI -100.58 to -57.11, P < 0.0001) and total postoperative hospital stay (WMD -7.62, 95%CI -11.60 to -3.63, P = 0.0002) but a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess (OR 2.69, 95%CI 1.39 to 5.21, P = 0.0032) and secondary peritonitis (OR 5.30, 95%CI 1.91 to 14.73, P = 0.0014).
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic lavage for patients with Hinchey Ⅲ to Ⅳ diverticulitis does provide similar mortality, shorter operative time and hospital stay. However, the evidence so far suggests that it might be inadequate for sepsis control and may result in more unplanned reoperations. Further studies are needed to standardize the formal indication for laparoscopic lavage.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Adult; Aged; Colectomy; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Operative Time; Peritoneal Lavage; Peritonitis; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Period; Reoperation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31610284
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.10.007