Review

Minimally invasive and surgical management strategies tailored to the severity of acute diverticulitis F. D. McDermott, D. Collins, A. Heeney and D. C. Winter Centre for Colorectal Disease, St Vincent’s University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland Correspondence to: Professor D. C. Winter (e-mail: [email protected])

Background: The severity of acute diverticulitis ranges from mild, simple inflammation to pericolic

abscesses, or perforation with faeculent peritonitis. Treatment of diverticulitis has evolved towards more conservative and minimally invasive strategies. The aim of this review is to highlight recent concepts and advances in management. Methods: A literature review was performed on the electronic databases MEDLINE from PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for publications in English. The keywords ‘diverticulitis’, ‘diverticular’ were searched for the past decade (to September 2013). Results: Diverticulitis occurs frequently in the Western world, but only one in five patients develops complications (such as abscess and perforation) during the first acute presentation. The reported perforation rate is 3·5 per 100 000 population. Based on recent data, including the AVOD and DIVER trials, antibiotic therapy for mild episodes may be unnecessary and outpatient management reasonable in most patients. Antibiotics and admission to hospital is required for complicated diverticulitis confirmed on imaging and for patients with sepsis. Diverticular abscesses (about 5 per cent of patients) may require percutaneous drainage if antibiotics alone fail. Laparoscopic management of non-faecal perforated diverticulitis is feasible in selected patients, and peritoneal lavage in combination with antibiotic therapy may avoid colonic resection and a stoma. However, the collective, published worldwide experience is limited to fewer than 800 patients, and results from ongoing randomized trials (LapLAND, SCANDIV, DILALA and LADIES trials) are needed to inform better decision-making. Conclusion: The treatment of diverticulitis continues to evolve with a trend towards a more conservative and minimally invasive management approach. Judicious use of antibiotics in uncomplicated cases, greater application of laparoscopic techniques, and primary resection and anastomosis are of benefit in selected patients. Paper accepted 26 September 2013 Published online 21 November 2013 in Wiley Online Library (www.bjs.co.uk). DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9359

Introduction

The presence of colonic diverticula (diverticulosis) increases with age, with an estimated prevalence of 5 per cent in 30–39-year-olds increasing to 60 per cent in those aged over 80 years1 . The risk of diverticulosis progressing to diverticulitis was traditionally reported to be as high as 10–25 per cent2 . From more recent knowledge, these historically high rates were an overestimation. More robust data suggest that only 4 per cent of patients with diverticulosis will develop an acute inflammatory episode of the affected colonic segment (diverticulitis)2 . Diverticulitis admissions vary from 70 to 160 per 100 000 population in Western countries3 – 7 . Meanwhile, perforated diverticulitis  2013 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

has an estimated adult incidence of only 3·5 per 100 000 population8 . Diverticulitis is a heterogeneous disease process with a spectrum from mild uncomplicated inflammation, to complicated disease including pericolic abscess, to free perforation with faeculent peritonitis. Acute diverticulitis is often graded in severity by means of the Hinchey classification (Fig. 1). The surgical management of diverticulitis has been challenged in recent years, For example, not all patients with complicated diverticulitis require surgery; the use of laparoscopy in the emergency setting is not contraindicated and can be a useful therapeutic adjunct. In addition, primary anastomosis in the setting of perforated diverticulitis appears to be feasible BJS 2014; 101: e90–e99

Minimally invasive and surgical management strategies for acute diverticulitis

e91

Omentum Large bowel

Small or confined pericolic or mesenteric abscess

a

b

Stage 1

Stage 2 Omentum

Omentum

Liquid discharge

c

Pelvic bone

Large abscess extending into pelvis

Gaseous release

Stage 3

Faecal discharge

d

Stage 4

Hinchey classification: a stage 1, mesocolic abscess; b stage 2, pelvic abscess; c stage 3, purulent peritonitis; d stage 4, faeculent peritonitis

Fig. 1

with equivalent results to the standard operation, Hartmann’s procedure. Furthermore, the medical management of diverticulitis has also progressed. With the new concept of diverticula-associated colitis, there has been a surge in studies investigating the role of probiotics, non-absorbable antibiotics (rifaximin) and 5-aminosalicylic compounds9,10 . Overall, there has been a trend towards a

more conservative (less invasive) management strategy in acute diverticulitis. In view of the constantly evolving treatments for this heterogeneous condition, the aim of this review is to highlight the modern approach to diverticulitis, with a focus on recent concepts and advances in the surgical management of this disease.

 2013 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

www.bjs.co.uk

BJS 2014; 101: e90–e99

e92

F. D. McDermott, D. Collins, A. Heeney and D. C. Winter

Methods

A literature review was performed using the electronic databases MEDLINE from PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The keywords ‘diverticulitis’, ‘diverticular’ were searched for titles and abstracts in the English language (1 January 1993 to 4 September 2013). Case reports, position statements and case series of fewer than ten patients were excluded. Further studies were identified from searches on Google Scholar, as well as manual searches through reference lists of the relevant studies found. In order to define disease groups, papers were divided into those pertaining to ‘uncomplicated diverticulitis’ or ‘complicated diverticulitis’. ‘Uncomplicated or mild diverticulitis’ refers to patients with sigmoid diverticular inflammation in the absence of abscess, fistula, perforation, obstruction or bleeding (Fig. 2). ‘Complicated diverticulitis’ was classified using the Hinchey classification (Fig. 1)11 . Based on computed tomography (CT) criteria, diverticulitis can be classified as mild (uncomplicated; for example sigmoid thickening, pericolonic fat stranding on CT) (Fig. 2) or moderate severe (complicated; sigmoid thickening and abscess, free air or contrast extravasation on CT) (Figs 3 and 4)12 . Results

The most commonly used grading system for complicated diverticulitis is the Hinchey classification11 (Fig. 1). Management strategies vary depending on Hinchey grade. Hinchey I–II generally responds to conservative management with or without radiological drainage, whereas Hinchey III–IV usually warrants surgical intervention. The current clinical controversies pertain to the invasiveness and aggressiveness needed for both spectra of disease. The mild uncomplicated form may be treated by a more expectant approach and less reliance on antibiotics than previously practised, whereas percutaneous and minimally invasive techniques could be considered for some of the more severe, complicated forms. Hinchey IV with frank faecal peritonitis still requires urgent surgery by a Hartmann’s approach in the majority of patients. A brief overview is given of the conservative approach to uncomplicated disease, and the remainder of the review focuses on the management of complicated acute diverticulitis.

Clinical presentation and diagnosis Acute diverticulitis is a common surgical problem with an increasing number of admissions worldwide3,13,14 .  2013 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Fat stranding

Diverticula

Coronal computed tomography image of mild diverticulitis demonstrating diverticula and mesocolic inflammation with fat stranding

Fig. 2

In the UK, admissions increased from 0·56 to 1·20 per 1000 population per year from 1996 to 2006, and in the USA acute diverticulitis accounted for 219 133 hospital admissions in 20093,13 . Patients classically present with left iliac fossa pain, feverishness, relative anorexia, and a subtle, acute alteration in bowel habit. Mild tachycardia and peritonitis (local or generalized) may accompany complicated cases as a sign of the start of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), which may develop into severe sepsis and a haemodynamically compromised patient with faecal peritonitis due to a large perforation. Levels of inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein (CRP) and white cell count) are generally raised. In one study, 97 per cent of patients who presented with all three signs – left iliac fossa tenderness, CRP level over 50 mg/l and absence of vomiting – were diagnosed with acute diverticulitis15 . A CRP level over 90 mg/l was 88 per cent sensitive and 75 per cent specific for complicated disease in patients not on corticosteroids16 . However, in practice, scoring systems are not commonly used clinically. Although a CRP level over 50 mg/l heightens the index of suspicion, there is still a predominant reliance on radiological imaging to confirm the diagnosis and distinguish uncomplicated from complicated diverticulitis. The diagnostic modality of choice is CT as it has a high sensitivity and specificity for diverticulitis, and can accurately stage disease to guide management12 . The www.bjs.co.uk

BJS 2014; 101: e90–e99

Minimally invasive and surgical management strategies for acute diverticulitis

e93

Pericolic abscess

Percutaneous drain

Mesocolic abscess Abscess

a

Pericolic abscess: axial view

b

Pericolic abscess: sagittal view

c

Percutaneous drainage

Fig. 3 Computed tomography images of moderate diverticulitis: a axial and b sagittal views demonstrating a pericolic abscess; c percutaneous drainage

reported sensitivity and specificity for CT in diagnosing diverticulitis are 91 and 77 per cent respectively17 . Graded compression ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging are worthy alternatives, but are limited by interobserver variability and lack of access respectively18,19 . The spectrum of CT imaging features ranges from mild (Fig. 2) to moderate (intra-abdominal abscess; Fig. 3) and severe (overt pneumoperitoneum; Fig. 4) disease.

Management of uncomplicated diverticulitis Currently, the majority of practice parameters and clinical guidelines advocate antibiotics for the treatment of uncomplicated diverticulitis20 – 22 . Treatment can be provided on an outpatient basis if patients can tolerate an oral diet23,24 . The recently published DIVER trial25

randomized patients with CT-confirmed uncomplicated diverticulitis to one intravenous dose of antibiotics followed by oral antibiotics at home versus admission and continuous intravenous therapy for 48–72 h. The rate of treatment failure or quality of life did not differ between groups. The results also demonstrated that outpatient management was more cost-effective25 . Recently, the use of antibiotics in uncomplicated disease has been called into question. Use of antibiotics for uncomplicated acute diverticulitis has been the subject of a Cochrane review26 and three randomized clinical trials (RCTs)27 – 29 . The AVOD trial27 from northern Europe randomized 669 patients with CT-confirmed acute uncomplicated diverticulitis into those treated with antibiotics and those without. No statistical difference in complication rates, emergency surgery or recurrence

Pneumoperitoneum

Pneumoperitoneum Free air anteriorly

Thickened colon and free fluid

Collection and free air

a

Pneumoperitoneum

b

Faeculent peritonitis: axial view

c

Faeculent peritonitis: sagittal view

Fig. 4 Computed tomography images of severe diverticulitis: a axial view demonstrating pneumoperitoneum; b axial and c sagittal views showing pneumoperitoneum, a thickened colon and a pelvic fluid collection in keeping with faeculent peritonitis

 2013 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

www.bjs.co.uk

BJS 2014; 101: e90–e99

e94

was found between the two groups. The AVOD study excluded patients with complicated diverticulitis, alternative diagnoses, and those who were immunocompromised or pregnant. Two RCTs28,29 compared antibiotic type and route of administration in uncomplicated diverticulitis. They found no significant difference between cefoxitin versus gentamicin–clindamycin29 , or treatment with intravenous antibiotics for 24–48 h versus 7 days28 . The recent Cochrane review26 stated that the most recent AVOD trial had the best-quality evidence and concluded there was no difference with or without antibiotics, but this needs to be confirmed by further RCTs. Finally, a recent case–control study30 investigated 272 patients with mild colonic diverticulitis, of whom 81 were treated with antibiotics and 191 without. The rate of treatment failure was no different between the groups. Although these studies raise the possibility that uncomplicated diverticulitis may not require antibiotic treatment, it should be recognized that this applies only to patients who have no overt signs of sepsis or underlying immunosuppression, or significant co-morbidities. Clinical judgement still remains an important aspect of managing acute diverticulitis and, in addition to CT findings, inflammatory markers (especially CRP) may help to predict the clinical course31 . Although no universal, objective diagnostic tool exists for defining severity of disease, a recent paper suggested that, if all of three suggested criteria (left iliac fossa tenderness, CRP level over 50 mg/l and absence of vomiting) are met, and there are no signs of complicated disease, patients may be withheld from further imaging32 . However, patients who present to the emergency surgical services are a subgroup who either self-present as they feel their symptoms warrant hospital assessment, or have been referred by their primary care physician for further surgical evaluation. Patients with mild tenderness and absence of SIRS are the ones who can be treated without antibiotics and the majority do not need admission to hospital. Patients with SIRS, diffuse peritonism and increased inflammatory marker levels should be imaged with CT (or with compression ultrasonography if available with appropriate expertise). If uncomplicated diverticulitis is confirmed, the majority of these patients may be treated with oral antibiotics without admission to hospital. Hospital admission may follow if the presentation justifies further imaging and clinical assessment, or if intravenous antibiotics and analgesia are needed in the acute phase of management. Uncomplicated diverticulitis follows a rather indolent course. Approximately one-third of patients experience a recurrence, but only about 10 per cent with recurrence have complicated disease33,34 .  2013 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

F. D. McDermott, D. Collins, A. Heeney and D. C. Winter

Complicated diverticulitis Complicated diverticulitis encompasses a broad spectrum of pathologies ranging from small pericolic abscesses with localized peritonitis to perforation with generalized peritonitis and sepsis, or late complications/presentations such obstruction or fistula. As obstruction and fistulas are late/chronic presentations of the disease they are not discussed in this review, which focuses on emergency treatment. Before the implementation of percutaneous abscess drainage, up to 15 per cent of operations for complicated diverticulitis were for the management of intra-abdominal or pelvic abscesses35 . Controversy exists as to whether planned, elective sigmoid resection is warranted following successful percutaneous drainage, and there is a lack of international consensus regarding this. In one of the largest retrospective reviews of the management of diverticular abscess36 , 73 patients with either mesocolic (Hinchey I) or pelvic (Hinchey II) abscess were followed for 43 months. Twenty-five per cent (18 patients) had surgery during their first admission and 34 per cent subsequently went on to sigmoid resection. Those with a pelvic abscess were more likely to undergo operative intervention. Observation following percutaneous abscess drainage appears safe in selected patients37 . Several smaller studies and one case–control series have investigated the role of percutaneous abscess drainage as a temporizing measure to avoid emergency surgery. Small abscesses (less than 5 cm) can be treated successfully with antibiotics and do not require percutaneous drainage routinely38 . An abscess larger than 5 cm is likely to be amenable to percutaneous drainage36,39,40 ; however, successful drainage depends on the anatomical location and characteristics (uniloculated versus multiloculated) of the abscess. In a small case–control series41 investigating antibiotic therapy alone versus percutaneous abscess drainage and antibiotic therapy, there was no significant difference in the requirement for surgery between groups. Patients in this cohort had a mean abscess size of 6 cm. Overall, percutaneous abscess drainage has a failure rate of approximately 15–30 per cent36,42,43 and recurrence rates following abscess drainage are in the region of 40–50 per cent44 . Colectomy is not necessary in all patients with diverticular abscess, but this is based on limited evidence. Often patients with considerable co-morbidities are not offered surgery in the first instance. Non-operative management of diverticular abscess challenges the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons guidelines20 and would be a worthwhile topic for further investigation in the setting of an RCT. www.bjs.co.uk

BJS 2014; 101: e90–e99

Minimally invasive and surgical management strategies for acute diverticulitis

Management of perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey III/Hinchey IV) The management of perforated diverticular disease has evolved over the past century. The three-stage procedure first described by Mayo45 in 1907 was superseded in the 1980s by a two-stage approach (non-restorative sigmoid colectomy with end colostomy and a long peritonealized rectal stump subsequently reversed) that is referred to inaccurately as a ‘Hartmann’s procedure’46 . In fact, Hartmann did not describe a non-restorative sigmoid colectomy, but rather an abdominal approach for cancer of the rectum with closure of an extraperitoneal rectal stump and permanent end colostomy47 . Several diverticulitis studies throughout the 1980s demonstrated lower mortality rates in patients undergoing primary resection compared with those who had a three-stage procedure48,49 and this modified ‘Hartmann’s procedure’ soon became the standard of care.

Non-restorative colectomy versus primary anastomosis A non-restorative resection gained favour in diverticular peritonitis, as it is a relatively quick procedure that removes the source of sepsis. It avoids the risk of anastomotic leak in unstable patients requiring inotropic support. However, morbidity and mortality rates are high, with a systematic review50 reporting wound infection rates of 24 per cent and a mortality rate of 18·8 per cent for Hartmann’s procedure. Furthermore, over one-third of patients never have their stoma reversed, although this subgroup of patients is likely to be elderly or have multiple co-morbidities, and further operation is deemed unsafe51 . Given that Hartmann’s procedure carries significant morbidity and mortality, efforts were made to determine the feasibility of performing a primary anastomosis in the setting of perforated diverticular disease. Several studies and systematic reviews have compared non-restorative resection with primary anastomosis (with or without a defunctioning stoma)50,52 – 56 . Only one RCT57 has been published and it finished early owing to low accrual rates. Interim analysis revealed significant differences in secondary endpoints, including stoma reversal (only 57 per cent in the non-restorative group versus 90 per cent in the primary anastomosis group) and serious complications in favour of primary anastomosis. There was no difference in mortality between groups57 . In a decision analysis study51 , primary anastomosis with a defunctioning stoma resulted as the procedure of choice when the risk of postoperative complications is in the region of 40 per cent. Based on this analysis, it may give a better long-term quality  2013 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

e95

of life, probably owing to the higher stoma reversal rate51 . In the most recent systematic review58 , anastomotic leak rates were in the order of 6 per cent in suitable patients. The current body of evidence suggests that primary anastomosis by appropriately trained surgeons should be considered for perforated/complicated diverticulitis requiring resection, but that a non-restorative procedure has a place where an anastomosis is unsafe. This will come down to the judgement of the treating surgeon, taking into account the clinical status of the patient and underlying co-morbidities.

Laparoscopy and peritoneal lavage Given the high morbidity and stoma rates, the need for resectional surgery in all patients with generalized peritonitis has been questioned59,60 . Frequently a site of diverticular perforation is not identified. Hinchey III refers to purulent peritonitis often due to a ruptured intraperitoneal abscess (rather than an overt colonic breach). Hinchey IV refers to faeculent peritonitis owing to a large colonic hole, commonly due to a stercoral erosion (with no identifiable diverticulum) in susceptible patients (often elderly, constipated, relatively immobile women on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and with a history of collagen vascular diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis) rather than a true diverticular perforation. Treatment of purulent peritonitis with intravenous fluids, antibiotics and laparoscopic lavage was first reported in 1996 in a series of eight patients61 . Two patients had medical complications following the procedure, but all recovered without a need for further surgery. This initial report was followed by a multi-institutional study62 of 100 patients, with a mortality rate of less than 5 per cent for those managed with laparoscopic lavage without resection. A recent systematic review63 of 12 studies demonstrated that lavage was used mostly for Hinchey III, had low conversion rates (4·9 per cent) and a mean length of stay of 9·3 days. The mean complication rate was 18·9 per cent, with an overall mortality rate of 0·25 per cent. The LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage (LOLA) arm of the LADIES trial randomized between laparoscopic lavage and resection (with or without primary anastomosis). Recruitment was stopped early for this arm of the study, but data on the management of 38 patients treated with lavage have been published recently64 . Laparoscopic lavage was successful in managing sepsis in 31 of 38 patients, with four deaths and a morbidity rate of 32 per cent. The authors concluded that lavage is feasible in the majority of patients, but that patient selection and rigorous assessment for occult perforations is imperative. Although the Dutch experience demonstrates higher morbidity than previous www.bjs.co.uk

BJS 2014; 101: e90–e99

e96

Table 1

F. D. McDermott, D. Collins, A. Heeney and D. C. Winter

Current randomized clinical trials of management of perforated diverticulitis

Trial

Country/Region

SCANDIV67

Scandinavia

LADIES64

The Netherlands

DILALA68

Scandinavia

LapLAND69

Ireland

Design

Primary endpoints

RCT LL versus HP or resection for perforated diverticulitis RCT LOLA arm: LL, HP or PRA (2 : 1 : 1) for purulent peritonitis DIVA arm: HP versus PRA (1 : 1) for faecal peritonitis RCT LL versus HP (1 : 1) for Hinchey III RCT LL versus HP or PRA (1 : 1) for Hinchey III

Sample size

Postoperative complications at 90 days

150 (1 : 1)

LOLA: major morbidity and mortality DIVA: stoma-free survival 1 year after initial surgery

LOLA: 264 DIVA: 212

Reoperation in 12 months

80 (1 : 1)

Morbidity and mortality

300 (200 with Hinchey III)

RCT, randomized clinical trial; LL, laparoscopic lavage; HP, Hartmann’s procedure; LOLA, LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage; PRA, primary resection and anastomosis; DIVA, perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoid resection with or without Anastomosis.

studies61,62 , it should be noted that patients with underlying malignancy were included in the study, one of whom died from inoperable lung cancer. This challenges the generalizability of the results, but highlights the fact that not all patients are suitable for a minimalist approach. Identification of patients who will have a poorer outcome following lavage is important to inform decision-making. Results from an Irish population database65 suggest that patients with underlying connective tissue disorders or chronic kidney disease have poorer outcomes. It must be remembered that laparoscopy in the setting of perforated diverticulitis is useful in confirming a diagnosis and may be therapeutic in allowing lavage of the abdominal cavity. It is clear that this technique is suitable only for purulent peritonitis (Hinchey III); if a perforation is identified, the patient requires some form of resection. The challenge for the surgeon is to ensure that a perforation is not missed and therefore an experienced laparoscopic surgeon is required. Future perspectives

The lack of RCTs for common surgical problems such as diverticulitis challenges the genesis of an evidence-based practice, but this is improving. For example, the outpatient management of uncomplicated symptomatic diverticular disease is not a new concept, although randomized data and international consensus are lacking. The DIVER trial24,66 at least provides robust data that ambulatory management of diverticulitis is feasible in patients without systemic symptoms. Regarding complicated disease, the results of the LapLAND, DILALA and SCANDIV trials are eagerly awaited (Table 1)67 – 69 . The real key to managing diverticulitis lies in the identification of patients in whom conservative measures will fail. It is clear from several studies that elderly  2013 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

women with underlying connective disorders or those who are immunosuppressed have poorer overall outcomes65 . CT grading systems together with laboratory variables (white cell count, CRP) and patient co-morbidities may help to direct treatment. One of the pitfalls of current research is the low numbers of patients recruited into clinical trials. As the incidence of complicated diverticulitis is not increasing70 , it is now more important to collaborate and consolidate research initiatives, for example the 3D Collaborative Study Group in Holland71 , but the aim should be for larger-scale international collaboration. Disclosure

The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1 Andersen JC, Bundgaard L, Elbrønd H, Laurberg S, Walker LR, Støvring J; Danish Surgical Society. Danish national guidelines for treatment of diverticular disease. Dan Med J 2012; 59: C4453. 2 Shahedi K, Fuller G, Bolus R, Cohen E, Vu M, Shah R et al. Long-term risk of acute diverticulitis among patients with incidental diverticulosis found during colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; [Epub ahead of print]. 3 Jeyarajah S, Faiz O, Bottle A, Aylin P, Bjarnason I, Tekkis PP et al. Diverticular disease hospital admissions are increasing, with poor outcomes in the elderly and emergency admissions. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009; 30: 1171–1182. 4 Hjern F, Wolk A, H˚akansson N. Smoking and the risk of diverticular disease in women. Br J Surg 2011; 98: 997–1002. 5 Etzioni DA, Cannom RR, Ault GT, Beart RW Jr, Kaiser AM. Diverticulitis in California from 1995 to 2006: increased rates of treatment for younger patients. Am Surg 2009; 75: 981–985.

www.bjs.co.uk

BJS 2014; 101: e90–e99

Minimally invasive and surgical management strategies for acute diverticulitis

6 Masoomi H, Buchberg BS, Magno C, Mills SD, Stamos MJ. Trends in diverticulitis management in the United States from 2002 to 2007. Arch Surg 2011; 146: 400–406. 7 Strate LL, Liu YL, Syngal S, Aldoori WH, Giovannucci EL. Nut, corn, and popcorn consumption and the incidence of diverticular disease. JAMA 2008; 300: 907–914. 8 Morris CR, Harvey IM, Stebbings WS, Hart AR. Incidence of perforated diverticulitis and risk factors for death in a UK population. Br J Surg 2008; 95: 876–881. 9 Tursi A, Brandimarte G, Elisei W, Picchio M, Forti G, Pianese G et al. Randomised clinical trial: mesalazine and/or probiotics in maintaining remission of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease – a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2013; 38: 741–751. 10 Parente F, Bargiggia S, Prada A, Bortoli A, Giacosa A, German`a B et al.; Gismi Study Group. Intermittent treatment with mesalazine in the prevention of diverticulitis recurrence: a randomised multicentre pilot double-blind placebo-controlled study of 24-month duration. Int J Colorectal Dis 2013; 28: 1423–1431. 11 Hinchey EJ, Schaal PG, Richards GK. Treatment of perforated diverticular disease of the colon. Adv Surg 1978; 12: 85–109. 12 Ambrosetti P. Value of CT for acute left-colonic diverticulitis: the surgeon’s view. Dig Dis 2012; 30: 51–55. 13 Peery AF, Dellon ES, Lund J, Crockett SD, McGowan CE, Bulsiewicz WJ et al. Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 1179–1187. 14 Etzioni DA, Mack TM, Beart RW Jr, Kaiser AM. Diverticulitis in the United States: 1998–2005: changing patterns of disease and treatment. Ann Surg 2009; 249: 210–217. 15 Lam´eris W, van Randen A, van Gulik TM, Busch OR, Winkelhagen J, Bossuyt PM et al. A clinical decision rule to establish the diagnosis of acute diverticulitis at the emergency department. Dis Colon Rectum 2010; 53: 896–904. 16 Nizri E, Spring S, Ben-Yehuda A, Khatib M, Klausner J, Greenberg R. C-reactive protein as a marker of complicated diverticulitis in patients on anti-inflammatory medications. Tech Coloproctol 2013; [Epub ahead of print]. 17 Pradel JA, Adell JF, Taourel P, Djafari M, Monnin-Delhom E, Bruel JM. Acute colonic diverticulitis: prospective comparative evaluation with US and CT. Radiology 1997; 205: 503–512. 18 Heverhagen JT, Sitter H, Zielke A, Klose KJ. Prospective evaluation of the value of magnetic resonance imaging in suspected acute sigmoid diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 1810–1815. ¨ amo¨ E, Hjern F, Blomqvist L, Von Heijne A, 19 Oist¨ Abraham-Nordling M. Cancer and diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon. Differentiation with computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary experiences. Acta Radiol 2013; 54: 237–241.  2013 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

e97

20 Rafferty J, Shellito P, Hyman NH, Buie WD; Standards Committee of American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Practice parameters for sigmoid diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49: 939–944. 21 Surgical treatment of diverticulitis. Patient Care Committee of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT). J Gastroenterol Surg 1999; 3: 212–213. ¨ 22 Kohler L, Sauerland S, Neugebauer E. Diagnosis and treatment of diverticular disease: results of a consensus development conference. The Scientific Committee of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc 1999; 13: 430–436. 23 Alonso S, Pera M, Par´es D, Pascual M, Gil MJ, Courtier R et al. Outpatient treatment of patients with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: e278–e282. 24 Etzioni DA, Chiu VY, Cannom RR, Burchette RJ, Haigh PI, Abbas MA. Outpatient treatment of acute diverticulitis: rates and predictors of failure. Dis Colon Rectum 2010; 53: 861–865. 25 Biondo S, Golda T, Kreisler E, Espin E, Vallribera F, Oteiza F et al. Outpatient versus hospitalization management for uncomplicated diverticulitis: a prospective, multicenter randomized clinical trial (DIVER Trial). Ann Surg 2013; [Epub ahead of print]. 26 Shabanzadeh DM, Wille-Jørgensen P. Antibiotics for uncomplicated diverticulitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (11)CD009092. 27 Chabok A, P˚ahlman L, Hjern F, Haapaniemi S, Smedh K; AVOD Study Group. Randomized clinical trial of antibiotics in acute uncomplicated diverticulitis. Br J Surg 2012; 99: 532–539. 28 Ribas Y, Bombardo´ J, Aguilar F, Jovell E, Alcantara-Moral M, Campillo F et al. Prospective randomized clinical trial assessing the efficacy of a short course of intravenously administered amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid followed by oral antibiotic in patients with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2010; 25: 1363–1370. 29 Kellum JM, Sugerman HJ, Coppa GF, Way LR, Fine R, Herz B et al. Randomized, prospective comparison of cefoxitin and gentamicin–clindamycin in the treatment of acute colonic diverticulitis. Clin Ther 1992; 14: 376–384. 30 de Korte N, Kuyvenhoven JP, van der Peet DL, Felt-Bersma RJ, Cuesta MA, Stockmann HB. Mild colonic diverticulitis can be treated without antibiotics. A case–control study. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14: 325–330. 31 van de Wall BJ, Draaisma WA, van der Kaaij RT, Consten EC, Wiezer MJ, Broeders IA. The value of inflammation markers and body temperature in acute diverticulitis. Colorectal Dis 2013; 15: 621–626. 32 Andeweg CS, Mulder IM, Felt-Bersma RJ, Verbon A, van der Wilt GJ, van Goor H et al. Guidelines of diagnostics and treatment of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis. Dig Surg 2013; 30: 278–292. 33 Gervaz P, Platon A, Widmer L, Ambrosetti P, Poletti PA. A clinical and radiological comparison of sigmoid diverticulitis episodes 1 and 2. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14: 463–468.

www.bjs.co.uk

BJS 2014; 101: e90–e99

e98

34 Anaya DA, Flum DR. Risk of emergency colectomy and colostomy in patients with diverticular disease. Arch Surg 2005; 140: 681–685. 35 Rodkey GV, Welch CE. Changing patterns in the surgical treatment of diverticular disease. Ann Surg 1984; 200: 466–478. 36 Ambrosetti P, Chautems R, Soravia C, Peiris-Waser N, Terrier F. Long-term outcome of mesocolic and pelvic diverticular abscesses of the left colon: a prospective study of 73 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48: 787–791. 37 Gaertner WB, Willis DJ, Madoff RD, Rothenberger DA, Kwaan MR, Belzer GE et al. Percutaneous drainage of colonic diverticular abscess: is colon resection necessary? Dis Colon Rectum 2013; 56: 622–626. 38 Siewert B, Tye G, Kruskal J, Sosna J, Opelka F, Raptopoulos V et al. Impact of CT-guided drainage in the treatment of diverticular abscesses: size matters. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 680–686. 39 Stabile BE, Puccio E, vanSonnenberg E, Neff CC. Preoperative percutaneous drainage of diverticular abscesses. Am J Surg 1990; 159: 99–104. 40 Kaiser AM, Jiang JK, Lake JP, Ault G, Artinyan A, Gonzalez-Ruiz C et al. The management of complicated diverticulitis and the role of computed tomography. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 910–917. 41 Brandt D, Gervaz P, Durmishi Y, Platon A, Morel P, Poletti PA. Percutaneous CT scan-guided drainage vs. antibiotherapy alone for Hinchey II diverticulitis: a case–control study. Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49: 1533–1538. 42 Aydin HN, Remzi FH. Diverticulitis: when and how to operate? Dig Liver Dis 2004; 36: 435–445. 43 vanSonnenberg E, Wittich GR, Goodacre BW, Casola G, D’Agostino HB. Percutaneous abscess drainage: update. World J Surg 2001; 25: 362–369. 44 Singh B, May K, Coltart I, Moore NR, Cunningham C. The long-term results of percutaneous drainage of diverticular abscess. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2008; 90: 297–301. 45 Mayo WJ, Wilson LB, Griffin HZ. Acquired diverticulitis of the large intestine. Surg Gynaecol Obstet 1907; 5: 8–15. 46 Hartmann H. Note sur un proc´ed´e nouveau d’extirpation ˆ Bull Mem Soc des cancers de la partie terminale du colon. Chir Paris 1923; 49: 1474–1477. 47 Myers E, Winter DC. Adieu to Henri Hartmann? Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: 849–850. 48 Greif JM, Fried G, McSherry CK. Surgical treatment of perforated diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon. Dis Colon Rectum 1980; 23: 483–487. 49 Krukowski ZH, Matheson NA. Emergency surgery for diverticular disease complicated by generalized and faecal peritonitis: a review. Br J Surg 1984; 71: 921–927. 50 Salem L, Flum DR. Primary anastomosis or Hartmann’s procedure for patients with diverticular peritonitis? A systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47: 1953–1964. 51 Constantinides VA, Heriot A, Remzi F, Darzi A, Senapati A, Fazio VW et al. Operative strategies for diverticular peritonitis: a decision analysis between primary resection  2013 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

F. D. McDermott, D. Collins, A. Heeney and D. C. Winter

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59 60

61

62

63

64

and anastomosis versus Hartmann’s procedures. Ann Surg 2007; 245: 94–103. Schilling MK, Maurer CA, Kollmar O, Buchler MW. Primary vs. secondary anastomosis after sigmoid colon resection for perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey stage III and IV): a prospective outcome and cost analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2001; 44: 699–703. Gooszen AW, Tollenaar RA, Geelkerken RH, Smeets HJ, Bemelman WA, Van Schaardenburgh P et al. Prospective study of primary anastomosis following sigmoid resection for suspected acute complicated diverticular disease. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 693–697. Vermeulen J, Coene PP, Van Hout NM, van der Harst E, Gosselink MP, Mannaerts GH et al. Restoration of bowel continuity after surgery for acute perforated diverticulitis: should Hartmann’s procedure be considered a one-stage procedure? Colorectal Dis 2009; 11: 619–624. Zorcolo L, Covotta L, Carlomagno N, Bartolo DC. Safety of primary anastomosis in emergency colo-rectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 2003; 5: 262–269. Toro A, Mannino M, Reale G, Cappello G, Di Carlo I. Primary anastomosis vs Hartmann procedure in acute complicated diverticulitis. Evolution over the last twenty years. Chirurgia (Bucur) 2012; 107: 598–604. Oberkofler CE, Rickenbacher A, Raptis DA, Lehmann K, Villiger P, Buchli C 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: 819–826. Abbas S. Resection and primary anastomosis in acute complicated diverticulitis, a systematic review of the literature. Int J Colorectal Dis 2007; 22: 351–357. Kronborg O. Treatment of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis: a prospective randomized trial. Br J Surg 1993; 80: 505–507. Zeitoun G, Laurent A, Rouffet F, Hay J, Fingerhut A, Paquet J. Multicentre, randomized clinical trial of primary versus secondary sigmoid resection in generalized peritonitis complicating sigmoid diverticulitis. Br J Surg 2000; 87: 1366–1374. O’Sullivan GC, Murphy D, O’Brien MG, Ireland A. Laparoscopic management of generalized peritonitis due to perforated colonic diverticula. Am J Surg 1996; 171: 432–434. Myers E, Hurley M, O’Sullivan GC, Kavanagh D, Wilson I, Winter DC. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis. Br J Surg 2008; 95: 97–101. Afshar S, Kurer MA. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for perforated sigmoid diverticulitis. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14: 135–142. Swank HA, Mulder IM, Hoofwijk AG, Nienhuijs SW, Lange JF, Bemelman WA; Dutch Diverticular Disease Collaborative Study Group. Early experience with laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis. Br J Surg 2013; 100: 704–710.

www.bjs.co.uk

BJS 2014; 101: e90–e99

Minimally invasive and surgical management strategies for acute diverticulitis

65 Rogers AC, Collins D, O’Sullivan GC, Winter DC. Laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis: a population analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2012; 55: 932–938. 66 Friend K, Mills AM. Is outpatient oral antibiotic therapy safe and effective for the treatment of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis? Ann Emerg Med 2011; 57: 600–602. 67 Øresland T, Schultz JK, Yaqub S, Rashidi M, Nilsen FR. Scandinavian Diverticulitis Trial – SCANDIV. A Randomized Prospective Multicentrer Trial. http://www. scandiv.com/Scandiv/SCANDIV_files/Scandiv protokoll 110110.pdf [accessed 1 October 2013]. 68 Thornell A, Angenete E, Gonzales E, Heath J, Jess P, L¨ackberg Z et al.; Scandinavian Surgical Outcomes Research

 2013 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

e99

Group, SSORG. Treatment of acute diverticulitis laparoscopic lavage vs. resection (DILALA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2011; 12: 186. 69 ClinicalTrials.gov. LapLAND Laparoscopic Lavage for Acute Non-Faeculant Diverticulitis. http://clinicaltrials. gov/show/NCT01019239 [accessed 1 October 2013]. 70 Ricciardi R, Baxter NN, Read TE, Marcello PW, Hall J, Roberts PL. Is the decline in the surgical treatment for diverticulitis associated with an increase in complicated diverticulitis? Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52: 1558–1563. 71 3D Collaborative Study Group. http://www.diverti culitis.nl/ [accessed 1 October 2013].

www.bjs.co.uk

BJS 2014; 101: e90–e99