Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background: This study aims to investigate trends in emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions and to determine predictors of admission from the ED for patients with a primary diagnosis of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (AUD). Methods: Weighted ED visits for a primary diagnosis of AUD (based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision and 10th Revision, [ICD-9 and ICD-10] codes) were captured from 2006 to 2017 using the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS). A %2 test of independence was used to compare patient and hospital characteristics between admitted and nonadmitted patients. A multiple logistic regression was used to determine odds of admission. Results: In 2006, a total of 237 445 patients presented to the ED with AUD, of whom 131 758 (55.5%) were admitted. In 2017, 392 316 patients presented to the ED with AUD, of whom 99 775 (2 5.4%) were admitted. This represents an overall 65.2% increase in the number of cases but a 30.1% decrease in the proportion admitted. In addition to year of presentation (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-0.85), age (18-44 yr: ref; 45-64 yr: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.89-0.92; 65-84 yr: OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07-1.12; > 85 yr: OR 2.36, 95% CI 2.23-2.44), insurance status (uninsured or self-insured: ref; private insurance: OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.19-1.24; Medicare: OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.23-1.30; Medicaid: OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.11-1.18; other: OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.40-1.50), number of comorbidities (0: REF; 1: OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.75-1.84; 2: OR 2.93, 95% CI 2.86-3.00; > 3: OR 10.73, 95% CI 10.5210.95), hospital location (metropolitan: OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.291.33) and hospital region (west: ref; northeast: OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.86-1.93; midwest: OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.25-1.29; south: OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.59-1.39) were strongly associated with admission. Conclusion: While the number of cases of AUD presenting to the ED continues to rise, the proportion of patients admitted is declining. In addition to year of presentation, older age, insurance status and hospital characteristics are strongly associated with admission.

BackgroundThis study aimed to compare laparoscopic lavage and sigmoidectomy as treatment for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis during a 36 month follow-up of the LOLA trial.MethodsWithin the LOLA arm of the international, multicentre LADIES trial, patients with perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis were randomised between laparoscopic lavage and sigmoidectomy. Outcomes were collected up to 36 months. The primary outcome of the present study was cumulative morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included reoperations (including stoma reversals), stoma rates, and sigmoidectomy rates in the lavage group.ResultsLong-term follow-up was recorded in 77 of the 88 originally included patients, 39 were randomised to sigmoidectomy (51%) and 38 to laparoscopic lavage (49%). After 36 months, overall cumulative morbidity (sigmoidectomy 28/39 (72%) versus lavage 32/38 (84%), p = 0·272) and mortality (sigmoidectomy 7/39 (18%) versus lavage 6/38 (16%), p = 1·000) did not differ. The number of patients who underwent a reoperation was significantly lower for lavage compared to sigmoidectomy (sigmoidectomy 27/39 (69%) versus lavage 17/38 (45%), p = 0·039). After 36 months, patients alive with stoma in situ was lower in the lavage group (proportion calculated from the Kaplan–Meier life table, sigmoidectomy 17% vs lavage 11%, log-rank p = 0·0268). Eventually, 17 of 38 (45%) patients allocated to lavage underwent sigmoidectomy.ConclusionLong-term outcomes showed that laparoscopic lavage was associated with less patients who underwent reoperations and lower stoma rates in patients alive after 36 months compared to sigmoidectomy. No differences were found in terms of cumulative morbidity or mortality. Patient selection should be improved to reduce risk for short-term complications after which lavage could still be a valuable treatment option.

Case series suggest that laparoscopic peritoneal lavage might be a promising alternative to sigmoidectomy in patients with perforated diverticulitis. We aimed to assess the superiority of laparoscopic lavage compared with sigmoidectomy in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis, with respect to overall long-term morbidity and mortality. We did a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial in 34 teaching hospitals and eight academic hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands (the Ladies trial). The Ladies trial is split into two groups: the LOLA group comparing laparoscopic lavage with sigmoidectomy and the DIVA group comparing Hartmann's procedure with sigmoidectomy plus primary anastomosis. The DIVA section of this trial is still underway but here we report the results of the LOLA section. Patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis were enrolled for LOLA, excluding patients with faecal peritonitis, aged older than 85 years, with high-dose steroid use (≥20 mg daily), and haemodynamic instability. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1; stratified by age [<60 years vs ≥60 years]) using secure online computer randomisation to laparoscopic lavage, Hartmann's procedure, or primary anastomosis in a parallel design after diagnostic laparoscopy. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle and were followed up after the index operation at least once in the outpatient setting and after sigmoidoscopy and stoma reversal, according to local protocols. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of major morbidity and mortality within 12 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, 90 patients were randomly assigned in the LOLA section of the Ladies trial when the study was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board because of an increased event rate in the lavage group. Two patients were excluded for protocol violations. The primary endpoint occurred in 30 (67%) of 45 patients in the lavage group and 25 (60%) of 42 patients in the sigmoidectomy group (odds ratio 1·28, 95% CI 0·54–3·03, p=0·58). By 12 months, four patients had died after lavage and six patients had died after sigmoidectomy (p=0·43). Laparoscopic lavage is not superior to sigmoidectomy for the treatment of purulent perforated diverticulitis. Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Background Potential advantages of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis are still under consideration. This study is designed to determine if emergent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis is associated with outcomes comparable to the traditional open approach. Methods The American College of Surgeons-National-Surgical-Quality-Improvement-Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried for laparoscopic and open emergent sigmoidectomy cases for perforated diverticulitis from 2012 through 2017. Using propensity score weights, 30-day outcomes between laparoscopic and open approaches were compared in two ways: one with converted cases as a separate group and another with converted cases combined with the laparoscopic-completed group (intention-to-treat). Results A total of 3756 cases met inclusion criteria—282 laparoscopic-completed, 175 laparoscopic-converted-to-open, and 3299 open. The laparoscopic-completed approach had significantly better outcomes than open and laparoscopic-converted cases. When combining laparoscopic-completed and laparoscopic-converted cases (intention-to-treat), the laparoscopic approach still had significantly fewer complications per patient, less unplanned intubation ( p  = 0.01), and acute renal failure ( p  = 0.005) than the open group. Laparoscopic groups had longer operating times and shorter hospital length of stay than the open group. Subgroup analysis comparing laparoscopic and open Hartmann’s procedure and primary anastomosis with and without diverting stoma also showed favorable outcomes for the laparoscopic group. Conclusions Laparoscopic emergent sigmoid resection for perforated diverticulitis is associated with favorable outcomes compared to the open approach. Hartmann’s procedure is still common and conversion rate is high. Training efforts that increase adoption of minimally invasive surgery and decrease conversion rates are justified. Randomized trials comparing laparoscopic and open approaches may allow further critical assessment of these findings.

Background Traditionally, patients with peritonitis Hinchey III and IV due to perforated diverticulitis were treated with Hartmann’s procedure. In the past decade, resection and primary anastomosis have gained popularity over Hartmann’s procedure and recent guidelines recommend Hartmann’s procedure in two situations only: critically ill patients and in selected patients with multiple comorbidity (at high risk of complications). The protective stoma (PS) is recommended after resection with primary anastomosis, however its interest has never been studied. The aim of this trial is to define the role of systematic PS after resection and primary anastomosis for peritonitis Hinchey III and IV due to perforated diverticulitis. Methods/design This DIVERTI 2 trial is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, superiority trial comparing resection and primary anastomosis with (control group) or without (experimental group) PS in patients with peritonitis Hinchey III and IV due to perforated diverticulitis. Primary endpoint is the overall 1 year morbidity according to the Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications. All complications occurring during hospitalization will be collected. Late complications occurring after hospitalization will be collected during follow-up. In order to obtain 80% power for a difference given by respective main probabilities of 67% and 47% in the protective stoma and no protective stoma groups respectively, with a two-sided type I error of 5%, 96 patients will have to be included in each group, hence 192 patients overall. Expecting a 5% rate of patients not assessable for the primary end point (lost to follow-up), 204 patients will be enrolled. Secondary endpoints are postoperative mortality, unplanned reinterventions, incisional surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, wound disruption, anastomotic leak, operating time, length of hospital stay, stoma at 1 year after initial surgery, quality of life, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Discussion The DIVERTI 2 trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, study to define the best strategy between PS and no PS in resection and primary anastomosis for patients presenting with peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT04604730 date of registration October 27, 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04604730?recrs=a&cond=Diverticulitis&draw=2&rank=12 .

Diverticular disease imposes a significant burden on Western and industrialized societies. The traditional pathogenesis model posits that low dietary fiber predisposes to diverticulosis, and fecalith obstruction prompts acute diverticulitis that is managed with broad-spectrum antibiotics or surgery. However, a growing body of knowledge is shifting the paradigm of diverticular disease from an acute surgical illness to a chronic bowel disorder composed of recurrent abdominal symptoms and considerable psychosocial impact. New research implicates a role for low-grade inflammation, sensory-motor nerve damage, and dysbiosis in a clinical picture that mimics irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and even inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Far from being an isolated event, acute diverticulitis may be the catalyst for chronic symptoms including abdominal pain, cramping, bloating, diarrhea, constipation, and \"post-diverticulitis IBS.\" In addition, studies reveal lower health-related quality of life in patients with chronic diverticular disease vs. controls. Health-care providers should maintain a high index of suspicion for the multifaceted presentations of diverticular disease, and remain aware that it might contribute to long-term emotional distress beyond traditional diverticulitis attacks. These developments are prompting a shift in therapeutic approaches from widespread antimicrobials and supportive care to the use of probiotics, mesalamine, and gut-directed antibiotics. This review addresses the emerging literature regarding epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of chronic, symptomatic diverticular disease, and provides current answers to common clinical questions.

Acute colonic diverticulitis is one of the most common clinical conditions encountered by surgeons in the acute setting. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts from the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) updated its guidelines for management of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis (ALCD) according to the most recent available literature. The update includes recent changes introduced in the management of ALCD. The new update has been further integrated with advances in acute right-sided colonic diverticulitis (ARCD) that is more common than ALCD in select regions of the world.