Cargando…

Position paper: management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis

Over the last three decades, emergency surgery for perforated sigmoid diverticulitis has evolved dramatically but remains controversial. Diverticulitis is categorized as uncomplicated (amenable to outpatient treatment) versus complicated (requiring hospitalization). Patients with complicated diverti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moore, Frederick A, Catena, Fausto, Moore, Ernest E, Leppaniemi, Ari, Peitzmann, Andrew B
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3877957/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24369826
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-8-55
_version_ 1782297723890827264
author Moore, Frederick A
Catena, Fausto
Moore, Ernest E
Leppaniemi, Ari
Peitzmann, Andrew B
author_facet Moore, Frederick A
Catena, Fausto
Moore, Ernest E
Leppaniemi, Ari
Peitzmann, Andrew B
author_sort Moore, Frederick A
collection PubMed
description Over the last three decades, emergency surgery for perforated sigmoid diverticulitis has evolved dramatically but remains controversial. Diverticulitis is categorized as uncomplicated (amenable to outpatient treatment) versus complicated (requiring hospitalization). Patients with complicated diverticulitis undergo computerized tomography (CT) scanning and the CT findings are used categorize the severity of disease. Treatment of stage I (phlegmon with or without small abscess) and stage II (phlegmon with large abscess) diverticulitis (which includes bowel rest, intravenous antibiotics and percutaneous drainage (PCD) of the larger abscesses) has not changed much over last two decades. On the other hand, treatment of stage III (purulent peritonitis) and stage IV (feculent peritonitis) diverticulitis has evolved dramatically and remains morbid. In the 1980s a two stage procedure (1(st) - segmental sigmoid resection with end colostomy and 2(nd) - colostomy closure after three to six months) was standard of care for most general surgeons. However, it was recognized that half of these patients never had their colostomy reversed and that colostomy closure was a morbid procedure. As a result starting in the 1990s colorectal surgical specialists increasing performed a one stage primary resection anastomosis (PRA) and demonstrated similar outcomes to the two stage procedure. In the mid 2000s, the colorectal surgeons promoted this as standard of care. But unfortunately despite advances in perioperative care and their excellent surgical skills, PRA for stage III/IV diverticulitis continued to have a high mortality (10-15%). The survivors require prolonged hospital stays and often do not fully recover. Recent case series indicate that a substantial portion of the patients who previously were subjected to emergency sigmoid colectomy can be successfully treated with less invasive nonoperative management with salvage PCD and/or laparoscopic lavage and drainage. These patients experience a surprisingly lower mortality and more rapid recovery. They are also spared the need for a colostomy and do not appear to benefit from a delayed elective sigmoid colectomy. While we await the final results ongoing prospective randomized clinical trials testing these less invasive alternatives, we have proposed (based primarily on case series and our expert opinions) what we believe safe and rationale management strategy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3877957
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38779572014-01-03 Position paper: management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis Moore, Frederick A Catena, Fausto Moore, Ernest E Leppaniemi, Ari Peitzmann, Andrew B World J Emerg Surg Review Over the last three decades, emergency surgery for perforated sigmoid diverticulitis has evolved dramatically but remains controversial. Diverticulitis is categorized as uncomplicated (amenable to outpatient treatment) versus complicated (requiring hospitalization). Patients with complicated diverticulitis undergo computerized tomography (CT) scanning and the CT findings are used categorize the severity of disease. Treatment of stage I (phlegmon with or without small abscess) and stage II (phlegmon with large abscess) diverticulitis (which includes bowel rest, intravenous antibiotics and percutaneous drainage (PCD) of the larger abscesses) has not changed much over last two decades. On the other hand, treatment of stage III (purulent peritonitis) and stage IV (feculent peritonitis) diverticulitis has evolved dramatically and remains morbid. In the 1980s a two stage procedure (1(st) - segmental sigmoid resection with end colostomy and 2(nd) - colostomy closure after three to six months) was standard of care for most general surgeons. However, it was recognized that half of these patients never had their colostomy reversed and that colostomy closure was a morbid procedure. As a result starting in the 1990s colorectal surgical specialists increasing performed a one stage primary resection anastomosis (PRA) and demonstrated similar outcomes to the two stage procedure. In the mid 2000s, the colorectal surgeons promoted this as standard of care. But unfortunately despite advances in perioperative care and their excellent surgical skills, PRA for stage III/IV diverticulitis continued to have a high mortality (10-15%). The survivors require prolonged hospital stays and often do not fully recover. Recent case series indicate that a substantial portion of the patients who previously were subjected to emergency sigmoid colectomy can be successfully treated with less invasive nonoperative management with salvage PCD and/or laparoscopic lavage and drainage. These patients experience a surprisingly lower mortality and more rapid recovery. They are also spared the need for a colostomy and do not appear to benefit from a delayed elective sigmoid colectomy. While we await the final results ongoing prospective randomized clinical trials testing these less invasive alternatives, we have proposed (based primarily on case series and our expert opinions) what we believe safe and rationale management strategy. BioMed Central 2013-12-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3877957/ /pubmed/24369826 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-8-55 Text en Copyright © 2013 Moore et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Moore, Frederick A
Catena, Fausto
Moore, Ernest E
Leppaniemi, Ari
Peitzmann, Andrew B
Position paper: management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis
title Position paper: management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis
title_full Position paper: management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis
title_fullStr Position paper: management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis
title_full_unstemmed Position paper: management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis
title_short Position paper: management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis
title_sort position paper: management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3877957/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24369826
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-8-55
work_keys_str_mv AT moorefredericka positionpapermanagementofperforatedsigmoiddiverticulitis
AT catenafausto positionpapermanagementofperforatedsigmoiddiverticulitis
AT mooreerneste positionpapermanagementofperforatedsigmoiddiverticulitis
AT leppaniemiari positionpapermanagementofperforatedsigmoiddiverticulitis
AT peitzmannandrewb positionpapermanagementofperforatedsigmoiddiverticulitis