Complicated Diverticular Disease: Position Statement on Outpatient Management, Hartmann's Procedure, Laparoscopic Peritoneal Lavage and Laparoscopic Approach. Consensus Document of the Spanish Association of Coloproctology and the Coloproctology Section of the Spanish Association of Surgeons

2017 ◽  
Vol 95 (7) ◽  
pp. 369-377
Author(s):  
Rafael Rosado-Cobián ◽  
Teresa Blasco-Segura ◽  
Manuel Ferrer-Márquez ◽  
Héctor Marín-Ortega ◽  
Lucinda Pérez-Domínguez ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Roberto Cirocchi ◽  
Paolo Sapienza ◽  
Gabriele Anania ◽  
Gian Andrea Binda ◽  
Stefano Avenia ◽  
...  

Summary Background In the last two decades, there has been a Copernican revolution in the decision-making for the treatment of Diverticular Disease. Purpose This article provides a report on the state-of-the-art of surgery for sigmoid diverticulitis. Conclusion Acute diverticulitis is the most common reason for colonic resection after cancer; in the last decade, the indication for surgical resection has become more and more infrequent also in emergency. Currently, emergency surgery is seldom indicated, mostly for severe abdominal infective complications. Nowadays, uncomplicated diverticulitis is the most frequent presentation of diverticular disease and it is usually approached with a conservative medical treatment. Non-Operative Management may be considered also for complicated diverticulitis with abdominal abscess. At present, there is consensus among experts that the hemodynamic response to the initial fluid resuscitation should guide the emergency surgical approach to patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. In hemodynamically stable patients, a laparoscopic approach is the first choice, and surgeons with advanced laparoscopic skills report advantages in terms of lower postoperative complication rates. At the moment, the so-called Hartmann’s procedure is only indicated in severe generalized peritonitis with metabolic derangement or in severely ill patients. Some authors suggested laparoscopic peritoneal lavage as a bridge to surgery or also as a definitive treatment without colonic resection in selected patients. In case of hemodynamic instability not responding to fluid resuscitation, an initial damage control surgery seems to be more attractive than a Hartmann’s procedure, and it is associated with a high rate of primary anastomosis.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. 3563
Author(s):  
Tarek M. Sehsah ◽  
Osama H. Abd-Raboh ◽  
Taha A. Ismail ◽  
Soliman M. Soliman

Background: Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann’s procedure has been increasingly practiced worldwide since the laparoscopic era. However, so far only a few studies have been published regarding the results of this procedure. Aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann’s (LHR) versus open reversal of Hartmann’s (OHR) procedure regarding to operative time, postoperative pain, hospital stay, postoperative complications and cost.Methods: This study was conducted on 40 patients with Hartmann’s colostomy admitted to the general surgery department, Tanta university hospitals, during the period from February 2017 to August 2019.Results: Regarding operative time, it was with a mean value 274.75±80.65 min in the LHR group and 156.75±32.81 min in the OHR group. The difference in time to pass flatus was with a mean value 1.78±0.68 days in the LHR group and 2.49±0.78 days in the OHR group. The difference in the hospital stay was with mean value 6.1±2.47 days in the LHR group and 9.3±2.20 days in the OHR group. Regarding post-operative complications; 6 patients (30%) developed post-operative complications while in the OHR group 10 (50%).Conclusions: In this era of minimal-access surgery and with increasing attention to fast-track protocols, we believe the laparoscopic approach should be the standard technique for patients undergoing reversal of Hartmann’s procedure. However, laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann’s procedure needs a surgical learning curve.


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 42-48
Author(s):  
Yu. S. Pankratova ◽  
O. Yu. Karpukhin ◽  
M. I. Ziganshin ◽  
A. F. Shakurov

AIM: to evaluate the prospects of using a colorectal invaginated anastomosis in patients with complicated diverticular disease (CDD).PATIENTS AND METHODS: during the period from 2014 to 2020, colorectal invaginated anastomosis, was used in 42 patients: 18 patients with CDD and 20 patients with colorectal cancer for stoma closure after Hartmann’s procedure. The comparison group consisted of 24 patients with CDD and 20 patients with colorectal cancer for stoma closure after Hartmann’s procedure: colorectal anastomosis was created here using traditional double-row handsewn technique. All patients underwent surgery with open access, while the primary anastomosis was performed in 20 (47.6%) patients, and in 22 (52.4%) patients of the group underwent stoma takedown.RESULTS: no anastomosis leakage developed in the main group. Moreover, the presence of single small diverticula with a diameter of 2–3 mm near the area of the anastomosis was not an indication to extend the resection borders. In the control group, in 13 (54.2%) patients, small diverticula were detected in the anastomosis are as well and required to expand the proximal border of resection. In this group, anastomosis leakage occurred in 2 (6.8%) patients with diverticular disease and required Hartmann’s procedure.CONCLUSION: the colorectal invaginated anastomosis is justified for patients with CDD during stoma takedown because it minimizes the risk of anastomosis leakage.


2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 154-156
Author(s):  
John Northfield ◽  
◽  
Andrew Beale ◽  
Charlotte Cannon ◽  
Laura Gonzalez ◽  
...  

Case number 1 An eighty nine year old woman was admitted with a two day history of abdominal pain and vomiting. Two months previously she had undergone a Hartmann’s procedure following a sigmoid perforation secondary to diverticular disease. A hiatus hernia had been noted on a CT undertaken prior to her recent surgery (Figure 1).


2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 322-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abe Fingerhut ◽  
Nicolas Veyrie

The term "complicated" diverticulitis is reserved for inflamed diverticular disease complicated by bleeding, abscess, peritonitis, fistula or bowel obstruction. Hemorrhage is best treated by angioembolization (interventional radiology). Treatment of infected diverticulitis has evolved enormously thanks to: 1) laparoscopic colonic resection followed or not (Hartmann's procedure) by restoration of intestinal continuity, 2) simple laparoscopic lavage (for peritonitis +/- resection). Diverticulitis (inflammation) may be treated with antibiotics alone, anti-inflammatory drugs, combined with bed rest and hygienic measures. Diverticular abscesses (Hinchey Grades I, II) may be initially treated by antibiotics alone and/or percutaneous drainage, depending on the size of the abscess. Generalized purulent peritonitis (Hinchey III) may be treated by the classic Hartmann procedure, or exteriorization of the perforation as a stoma, primary resection with or without anastomosis, with or without diversion, and last, simple laparoscopic lavage, usually even without drainage. Feculent peritonitis (Hinchey IV), a traditional indication for Hartmann's procedure, may also benefit from primary resection followed by anastomosis, with or without diversion, and even laparoscopic lavage. Acute obstruction (nearby inflammation, or adhesions, pseudotumoral formation, chronic strictures) and fistula are most often treated by resection, ideally laparoscopic. Minimal invasive therapeutic algorithms that, combined with less strict indications for radical surgery before a definite recurrence pattern is established, has definitely lead to fewer resections and/or stomas, reducing their attendant morbidity and mortality, improved post-interventional quality of life, and less costly therapeutic policies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document