Search

Background: Several studies have been published favouring sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis over Hartmann's procedure for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (Hinchey grade III or IV), but cost‐related outcomes were rarely reported. The present study aimed to evaluate costs and cost‐effectiveness within the DIVA arm of the Ladies trial. Methods: This was a cost‐effectiveness analysis of the DIVA arm of the multicentre randomized Ladies trial, comparing primary anastomosis over Hartmann's procedure for Hinchey grade III or IV diverticulitis. During 12‐month follow‐up, data on resource use, indirect costs (Short Form Health and Labour Questionnaire) and quality of life (EuroQol Five Dimensions) were collected prospectively, and analysed according to the modified intention‐to‐treat principle. Main outcomes were incremental cost‐effectiveness (ICER) and cost–utility (ICUR) ratios, expressed as the ratio of incremental costs and the incremental probability of being stoma‐free or incremental quality‐adjusted life‐years respectively. Results: Overall, 130 patients were included, of whom 64 were allocated to primary anastomosis (46 and 18 with Hinchey III and IV disease respectively) and 66 to Hartmann's procedure (46 and 20 respectively). Overall mean costs per patient were lower for primary anastomosis (€20 544, 95 per cent c.i. 19 569 to 21 519) than Hartmann's procedure (€28 670, 26 636 to 30 704), with a mean difference of €–8126 (–14 660 to –1592). The ICER was €–39 094 (95 per cent bias‐corrected and accelerated (BCa) c.i. –1213 to –116), indicating primary anastomosis to be more cost‐effective. The ICUR was €–101 435 (BCa c.i. –1 113 264 to 251 840). Conclusion: Primary anastomosis is more cost‐effective than Hartmann's procedure for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This multicentre retrospective cohort study included 447 patients with Hinchey Ib and II diverticular abscesses, who were treated with antibiotics, with or without percutaneous drainage. Abscesses of 3 and 5 cm in size were at higher risk of short‐term treatment failure and emergency surgery respectively. Initial non‐surgical treatment of Hinchey Ib and II diverticular abscesses was comparable between patients treated with antibiotics only and those who underwent percutaneous drainage in combination with antibiotics, with regard to short‐ and long‐term outcomes. Most do not need drainage [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aim: Stoma reversal might lead to a stoma site incisional hernia. Recently, prophylactic mesh reinforcement of the stoma site has gained increased attention, supporting the need for accurate data on the incidence of and risk factors for stoma site incisional hernia and to identify high‐risk patients. The aim of this study was to assess incidence, risk factors and prevention of stoma site incisional hernias. Method: Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar databases were searched. Studies reporting the incidence of stoma site incisional hernia after stoma reversal were included. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data on incidence, risk factors and prophylactic mesh reinforcement were extracted. Results: Of 1440 articles found, 33 studies comprising 4679 reversals were included. The overall incidence of incisional hernia was 6.5% [range 0%–38%, median follow‐up 27.5 (17.54–36) months]. Eleven studies assessed stoma site incisional hernia as the primary end‐point, showing an incidence of 17.7% [range 1.7%–36.1%, median follow‐up 28 (15.25–51.70) months]. Body mass index, diabetes and surgery for malignant disease were found to be independent risk factors, as derived from eight studies. Two retrospective comparative cohort studies showed significantly lower rates of stoma site incisional hernia with prophylactic mesh reinforcement compared with nonmesh controls [6.4% vs 36.1% (P = 0.001); 3% vs 19% (P = 0.04)]. Conclusion: Stoma site incisional hernia should not be underestimated as a long‐term problem. Body mass index, diabetes and malignancy seem to be potential risk factors. Currently, limited data are available on the outcomes of prophylactic mesh reinforcement to prevent stoma site incisional hernia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aim: Parastomal hernia is the most common complication following stoma construction. Surgical treatment is usually chosen over non‐operative treatment, but a clear rationale for the choice of management is often lacking. This study aims to investigate the reasons for non‐operative treatment, cross‐over rates and postoperative complications. Method: A multicentre, retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients diagnosed with a parastomal hernia between January 2007 and December 2012 were included. Data on baseline characteristics, primary surgery and hernias were collected. For non‐operative treatment, reasons for this treatment and cross‐over rates were evaluated. For all patients undergoing surgery (surgical treatment and cross‐overs), complication and recurrence rates were analysed. Results: Of the 80 patients included, 42 (53%) were in the surgical treatment group and 38 (48%) in the non‐operative treatment group. Median follow‐up was 46 months (interquartile range 24–72). The reasons for non‐operative treatment were absence of symptoms in 12 patients (32%), comorbidities in nine (24%) and patient preference in three (7.9%). In 14 patients (37%) reasons were not documented. Eight patients (21%) crossed over from non‐operative treatment to surgical treatment, of whom one needed emergency surgery. In 23 patients (55%), parastomal hernia recurred after the original surgical treatment, of whom 21 (91%) underwent additional repair. Conclusion: Parastomal hernia repair is associated with high recurrence and additional repair rates. Non‐operative treatment has a relatively low cross‐over and emergency surgery rate. Given these data, non‐operative treatment might be a better choice for patients without complaints or with comorbidities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage has increasingly been investigated as a promising alternative to sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis. Most studies only reported outcomes up to 12 months. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate long‐term outcomes of patients treated with laparoscopic lavage. Methods: Between 2008 and 2010, 38 patients treated with laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis in 10 Dutch teaching hospitals were included. Long‐term follow‐up data on patient outcomes, e.g. diverticulitis recurrence, reoperations and readmissions, were collected retrospectively. The characteristics of patients with recurrent diverticulitis or complications requiring surgery or leading to death, categorized as 'overall complicated outcome', were compared with patients who developed no complications or complications not requiring surgery. Results: The median follow‐up was 46 months (interquartile range 7–77), during which 17 episodes of recurrent diverticulitis (seven complicated) in 12 patients (32%) occurred. Twelve patients (32%) required additional surgery with a total of 29 procedures. Fifteen patients (39%) had a total of 50 readmissions. Of initially successfully treated patients (n = 31), 12 (31%) had recurrent diverticulitis or other complications. At 90 days, 32 (84%) patients were alive without undergoing a sigmoidectomy. However, seven (22%) of these patients eventually had a sigmoidectomy after 90 days. Diverticulitis‐related events occurred up to 6 years after the index procedure. Conclusion: Long‐term diverticulitis recurrence, re‐intervention and readmission rates after laparoscopic lavage were high. A complicated outcome was also seen in patients who had initially been treated successfully with laparoscopic lavage with relevant events occurring up to 6 years after initial surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The goal of this European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) guideline project is to give an overview of the existing evidence on the management of diverticular disease, primarily as a guidance to surgeons. Methods: The guideline was developed during several working phases including three voting rounds and one consensus meeting. The two project leads (JKS and EA) appointed by the ESCP guideline committee together with one member of the guideline committee (WB) agreed on the methodology, decided on six themes for working groups (WGs) and drafted a list of research questions. Senior WG members, mostly colorectal surgeons within the ESCP, were invited based on publication records and geographical aspects. Other specialties were included in the WGs where relevant. In addition, one trainee or PhD fellow was invited in each WG. All six WGs revised the research questions if necessary, did a literature search, created evidence tables where feasible, and drafted supporting text to each research question and statement. The text and statement proposals from each WG were arranged as one document by the first and last authors before online voting by all authors in two rounds. For the second voting ESCP national representatives were also invited. More than 90% agreement was considered a consensus. The final phrasing of the statements with < 90% agreement was discussed in a consensus meeting at the ESCP annual meeting in Vienna in September 2019. Thereafter, the first and the last author drafted the final text of the guideline and circulated it for final approval and for a third and final online voting of rephrased statements. Results: This guideline contains 38 evidence based consensus statements on the management of diverticular disease. Conclusion: This international, multidisciplinary guideline provides an up to date summary of the current knowledge of the management of diverticular disease as a guidance for clinicians and patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]