Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials on Long-term Outcomes of Surgical Treatment of Perforated Diverticulitis.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2023
01 11 2023
Historique:
medline:
6
10
2023
pubmed:
30
5
2023
entrez:
30
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess long-term outcomes of patients with perforated diverticulitis treated with resection or laparoscopic lavage (LL). Surgical treatment of perforated diverticulitis has changed in the last few decades. LL and increasing evidence that primary anastomosis (PRA) is feasible in certain patients have broadened surgical options. However, debate about the optimal surgical strategy lingers. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCT) on surgical treatment of perforated diverticulitis from inception to October 2022. Long-term reports of RCT comparing surgical interventions for the treatment of perforated diverticulitis were selected. The main outcome measures were long-term ostomy, long-term complications, recurrence, and reintervention rates. After screening 2431 studies, 5 long-term follow-up studies of RCT comprising 499 patients were included. Three studies, excluding patients with fecal peritonitis, compared LL and colonic resection, and 2 compared PRA and Hartmann procedures. LL had lower odds of long-term ostomy [odds ratio (OR) = 0.133, 95% CI: 0.278-0.579; P < 0.001] and reoperation (OR = 0.585, 95% CI: 0.365-0.937; P = 0.02) compared with colonic resection but higher odds of diverticular disease recurrence (OR = 5.8, 95% CI: 2.33-14.42; P < 0.001). Colonic resection with PRA had lower odds of long-term ostomy (OR = 0.02, 95% CI: 0.003-0.195; P < 0.001), long-term complications (OR = 0.195, 95% CI: 0.113-0.335; P < 0.001), reoperation (OR = 0.2, 95% CI: 0.108-0.384; P < 0.001), and incisional hernia (OR = 0.184, 95% CI: 0.102-0.333; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in odds of mortality among the procedures. Long-term follow-up of patients who underwent emergency surgery for perforated diverticulitis showed that LL had lower odds of long-term ostomy and reoperation, but more risk for disease recurrence when compared with resection in purulent peritonitis. Colonic resection with PRA had better long-term outcomes than the Hartmann procedure for fecal peritonitis.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To assess long-term outcomes of patients with perforated diverticulitis treated with resection or laparoscopic lavage (LL).
BACKGROUND
Surgical treatment of perforated diverticulitis has changed in the last few decades. LL and increasing evidence that primary anastomosis (PRA) is feasible in certain patients have broadened surgical options. However, debate about the optimal surgical strategy lingers.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCT) on surgical treatment of perforated diverticulitis from inception to October 2022. Long-term reports of RCT comparing surgical interventions for the treatment of perforated diverticulitis were selected. The main outcome measures were long-term ostomy, long-term complications, recurrence, and reintervention rates.
RESULTS
After screening 2431 studies, 5 long-term follow-up studies of RCT comprising 499 patients were included. Three studies, excluding patients with fecal peritonitis, compared LL and colonic resection, and 2 compared PRA and Hartmann procedures. LL had lower odds of long-term ostomy [odds ratio (OR) = 0.133, 95% CI: 0.278-0.579; P < 0.001] and reoperation (OR = 0.585, 95% CI: 0.365-0.937; P = 0.02) compared with colonic resection but higher odds of diverticular disease recurrence (OR = 5.8, 95% CI: 2.33-14.42; P < 0.001). Colonic resection with PRA had lower odds of long-term ostomy (OR = 0.02, 95% CI: 0.003-0.195; P < 0.001), long-term complications (OR = 0.195, 95% CI: 0.113-0.335; P < 0.001), reoperation (OR = 0.2, 95% CI: 0.108-0.384; P < 0.001), and incisional hernia (OR = 0.184, 95% CI: 0.102-0.333; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in odds of mortality among the procedures.
CONCLUSIONS
Long-term follow-up of patients who underwent emergency surgery for perforated diverticulitis showed that LL had lower odds of long-term ostomy and reoperation, but more risk for disease recurrence when compared with resection in purulent peritonitis. Colonic resection with PRA had better long-term outcomes than the Hartmann procedure for fecal peritonitis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37249187
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005909
pii: 00000658-202311000-00038
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e966-e972Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
S.D.W. reports receiving consulting fees from ARC/Corvus, Astellas, Baxter, Becton Dickinson, GI Supply, ICON Language Services, Intuitive Surgical, Leading BioSciences, Livsmed, Medtronic, Olympus Surgical, Stryker, Takeda and receiving royalties from Intuitive Surgical, and Karl Storz Endoscopy America Inc. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Jacobs DO. Clinical practice. Diverticulitis. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2057–2066.
Morris AM, Regenbogen SE, Hardiman KM, et al. Sigmoid diverticulitis: a systematic review. JAMA. 2014;3:287–297.
Li D, Baxter NN, McLeod RS, et al. The decline of elective colectomy following diverticulitis: a population-based analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59:332–339.
Deery SE, Hodin RA. Management of diverticulitis in 2017. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21:1732–1741.
Hall J, Hardiman K, Lee S, et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the treatment of left-sided colonic diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;63:728–747.
Horesh N, Wasserberg N, Zbar AP, et al. Changing paradigms in the management of diverticulitis. Int J Surg. 2016;33 Pt A:A146–A150.
Hartmann H. Nouveau procédé d’ablation des cancers de la partie terminale du colon pelvien [New procedure for the removal of cancers of the terminal part of the pelvic colon]. Trentieme Congres de Chirurgie. 1921;28:411.
Vermeulen J, Gosselink MP, Busschbach JJV, et al. Avoiding or reversing Hartmann’s procedure provides improved quality of life after perforated diverticulitis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:651–657.
Horesh N, Lessing Y, Rudnicki Y, et al. Considerations for Hartmann’s reversal and Hartmann’s reversal outcomes—a multicenter study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017;32:1577–1582.
Horesh N, Rudnicki Y, Dreznik Y, et al. Reversal of Hartmann’s procedure: still a complicated operation. Techs Coloproctol. 2018;22:81–87.
Aydin HN, Remzi FH, Tekkis PP, et al. Hartmann’s reversal is associated with high postoperative adverse events. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:2117–2126.
Myers E, Hurley M, O'Sullivan GC, et al. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis. Br J Surg. 2008;95:97–101.
Di Saverio S, Birindelli A, Catena F, et al. The Ladies Trial: premature termination of the LOLA arm and increased adverse events incidence after laparoscopic lavage may be influenced by inter-hospital and inter-operator variability. Take-home messages from a center with laparoscopic colorectal experience. Int J Surg. 2016;36:118–120.
Vennix S, Musters GD, Mulder I, et al. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial. Lancet. 2015;386:1269–1277.
Kreis ME, Mueller MH, Thasler WH. Hartmann’s procedure or primary anastomosis? Dig Dis. 2012;30:83–85.
Dreifuss NH, Bras Harriott C, Schlottmann F, et al. Laparoscopic resection and primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis: with or without loop ileostomy? Updates Surg. 2021;73:555–560.
Bridoux V, Regimbeau JM, Ouassi M, et al. Hartmann’s procedure or primary anastomosis for generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis: a prospective multicenter randomized trial (DIVERTI). J Am Coll Sur. 2017;225:798–805.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt P, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:14989.
Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, et al. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The GRADE Working Group. 2013. https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html
Schultz JK, Yaqub S, Walton C, et al. Laparoscopic lavage vs primary resection for acute perforated diverticulitis: the SCANDIV randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1364–1375.
Angenete E, Thornell A, Burcharth J, et al. Laparoscopic lavage is feasible and safe for the treatment of perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: the first results from the randomized controlled trial DILALA. Ann Surg. 2016;263:117–122.
Lambrichts DPV, Vennix S, Musters G, et al. Hartmann’s procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (LADIES): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, superiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:599–610.
Loire M, Bridoux V, Mege D, et al. Long-term outcomes of Hartmann’s procedure versus primary anastomosis for generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis: follow-up of a prospective multicenter randomized trial (DIVERTI). Int J Colorectal Dis. 2021;36:2159–2164.
Edomskis PP, Hoek V, Stark PW, et al. Hartmann’s procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or fecal peritonitis: three-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Int J Surg. 2022;98:106221.
Hoek VT, Edomskis PP, Stark PW, et al. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage versus sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: three-year follow-up of the randomised LOLA trial. Surg Endosc. 2022;36:7764–7774.
Azhar N, Johanssen A, Sundstrom T, et al. Laparoscopic lavage vs primary resection for acute perforated diverticulitis: long-term outcomes from the scandinavian diverticulitis (SCANDIV) randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2021;156:121–127.
Kohl A, Rosenberg J, Bock D, et al. Two-year results of the randomized clinical trial DILALA comparing laparoscopic lavage with resection as treatment for perforated diverticulitis. Br J Surg. 2018;105:1128–1134.
Schultz JK, Yaqub S, Wallon C, et al. Laparoscopic lavage vs primary resection for acute perforated diverticulitis: the SCANDIV randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1364–1375.
Swank HA, Vermeulen J, Lange JF, et al. The ladies trial: laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or resection for purulent peritonitis A and Hartmann’s procedure or resection with primary anastomosis for purulent or faecal peritonitis B in perforated diverticulitis (NTR2037). BMC Surg. 2010;10:29.
Sohn M, Agha A, Heitland W, et al. Damage control strategy for the treatment of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20:577–583.
Roig JV, Cantos M, Balciscueta Z, et al. Hartmann’s operation: how often is it reversed and at what cost? A multicentre study. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13:e396–e402.
Binda GA, Karas JR, Serventi A, et al. Primary anastomosis vs nonrestorative resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: a prematurely terminated randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:1403–1410.
Oberkofler CE, Rickenbacher A, Raptis DA, et al. A multicenter randomized clinical trial of primary anastomosis or Hartmann’s procedure for perforated left colonic diverticulitis with purulent or fecal peritonitis. Ann Surg. 2012;256:817–819.
Kafka-Ritsch R, Zitt M, Perathoner A, et al. Prospectively randomized controlled trial on damage control surgery for perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis. World J Surg. 2020;44:4098–4105.
Sartelli M, Weber DG, Kluger Y, et al. 2020 update of the WSES guidelines for the management of acute colonic diverticulitis in the emergency setting. World J Emerg Surg. 2020;15:32.
Hall J, Hardiman K, Lee S, et al. Prepared on behalf of the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the treatment of left-sided colonic diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63:728–747.