Surgical management of rectal cancer with synchronous treatment of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of synchronous treatments for rectal (RC) and prostate (PC) cancers. METHODS: Single-center retrospective study (2007-2021) of patients treated with neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) and total mesorectal excision (TME) for RC with synchronous PC treatment. The endpoints were 30-day postoperative severe complications, R0 resection rates, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among the 16 patients, 15 (93.7%) received neoadjuvant pelvic RT (40-50.4 Gray) followed by either transperineal high dose rate prostate brachytherapy (62.5%), prostate external RT boost (25.0%), or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone (6.3%). One (6.3%) patient received neoadjuvant rectal brachytherapy and ADT. Pelvic RT was combined with chemotherapy in 87.5% of cases. TME was performed in all patients with low anterior resection (87.5%) or abdominoperineal resection (12.5%), primarily using minimally invasive surgery (87.5%). The R0 resection rate was 93.8%. Six (37.5%) patients experienced 30-day Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb complications, including one (7.1%) anastomotic leak. After a median follow-up of 39.0 months, 63.6% of diverting ileostomies were reversed. Three-year DFS from RC was 71.4% (CI 40.2-88.3) and 3-year OS was 84.4% (CI 95% 50.4-95.9). No PC recurrence or death occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Synchronous management of RC and PC with pelvic RT followed by curative prostate RT doses and TME showed acceptable morbidity and oncologic results. Prostate brachytherapy, the most commonly used treatment modality, allowed avoidance of prostatectomy and additional external RT to the rectum. PC should not limit the curative intent of RC, as all recurrences were from rectal origin.

Loop Ileostomy Closure as a 23-Hour Stay Procedure With Preoperative Efferent Limb Enteral Stimulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Loop ileostomy closure is a common procedure in colorectal surgery. Often seen as a simple operation associated with a low complication rate, it still leads to lengthy hospitalizations. Reducing postoperative complications and ileus rates could lead to a shorter length of stay and even ambulatory surgery. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of ileostomy closure performed in a 23-hour hospitalization setting using a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTINGS: Two high-volume colorectal surgery centers. PATIENTS: Healthy adults undergoing elective ileostomy closure from July 2019 to January 2022. INTERVENTION: All patients were enrolled in a standardized enhanced recovery pathway specific to ileostomy closure, including daily irrigation of efferent limb with a nutritional formula for 7 days before surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to either conventional hospitalization (n = 23) or a 23-hour stay (n = 24). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was total length of stay and secondary outcomes were 30-day rates of readmission, postoperative ileus, surgical site infections, and postoperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients were ultimately randomly allocated. Patients in the 23-hour hospitalization arm had a shorter median length of stay (1 vs 2 days, p = 0.02) and similar rates of readmission (4% vs 13%, p = 0.35), postoperative ileus (none in both arms), surgical site infection (0% vs 4%, p = 0.49), postoperative morbidity (21% vs 22%, p = 1.00), and mortality (none in both arms). LIMITATIONS: Due to coronavirus disease 2019, access to surgical beds was greatly limited, leading to a shift toward ambulatory surgery for ileostomy closure. The study was terminated early, which affected its statistical power. CONCLUSION: Loop ileostomy closures as 23-hour stay procedures are feasible and safe. Ileus rate might be reduced by preoperative intestinal stimulation with nutritional formula through the stoma's efferent limb, although specific randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this association. See Video Abstract . CIERRE DE ILEOSTOMA EN ASA COMO PROCEDIMIENTO AMBULATORIO DE HORAS CON ESTMULO PREOPERATORIO ENTERAL EFERENTE ESTUDIO ALEATORIO CONTROLADO: ANTECEDENTES:El cierre de la ileostomía en asa es un procedimiento común en la cirugía colorrectal. A menudo vista como una operación simple asociada con bajas tasas de complicaciones, aún conduce a largas hospitalizaciones. La reducción de las complicaciones postoperatorias y las tasas de íleo podría conducir a una estadía hospitalaria más corta o incluso a una cirugía ambulatoria.OBJETIVOS:El presente estudio pretende evaluar la seguridad y la viabilidad del cierre de ileostomía realizadas en un entorno de hospitalización de 23 horas utilizando una vía de recuperación mejorada y estandarizada.DISEÑO:Estudio aleatorio controladoAJUSTES:Dos centros de cirugía colorrectal de gran volúmenPACIENTES:Adultos sanos sometidos a cierre electivo de ileostomía, desde Julio de 2019 hasta Enero de 2022.INTERVENCIÓN:Todos los pacientes fueron inscritos en una vía de recuperación mejorada y estandarizada específica para el cierre de la ileostomía, incluyendo la irrigación diaria de la extremidad eferente del intestino asociada a una fórmula nutricional durante 7 días previos a la cirugía. Los pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente en hospitalización convencional (n = 23) o a una estadía de 23 horas (n = 24).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue la duración total de la estadía hospitalaria y los resultados secundarios fueron las tasas de reingreso a los 30 días, el íleo postoperatorio, las infecciones de la herida quirúrgica, la morbilidad y mortalidad postoperatorias.RESULTADOS:Finalmente fueron randomizados un total de 47 pacientes. Aquellos que se encontraban en el grupo de hospitalización de 23 horas tuvieron una estadía media más corta (1 día versus 2 días, p = 0,02) y tasas similares de reingreso (4% vs 13%, p = 0,35), de íleo postoperatorio (ninguno en ambos brazos), de infección del sitio quirúrgico (0 vs 4%, p = 0,49), de morbilidad postoperatoria (21% vs 22%, p > 0,99) y de mortalidad (ninguna en ambos brazos).LIMITACIONES:Debido a la pandemia SARS CoV-2, el acceso a las camas quirúrgicas fue muy limitado, lo que llevó a un cambio hacia la cirugía ambulatoria para el cierre de ileostomías. El estudio finalizó anticipadamente, lo que afectó su poder estadístico.CONCLUSIÓN:Los cierres de ileostomía en asa como procedimientos de estadía de 23 horas son factibles y seguros. La tasa de íleo podría reducirse mediante la estimulación intestinal preoperatoria a través de la rama eferente del estoma asociada a fórmulas nutricionales, por lo que se necesitan estudios randomizados específicos para confirmar esta asociación. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a retrospective cohort study of anastomotic complications.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) can be performed with an intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). It is not clear which technique is best. This study evaluated the impact of each anastomosis technique on perioperative safety and postoperative evolution. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study at a tertiary colorectal surgery center. All patients who had an elective LRH from 2015 to 2019 were analyzed according to the anastomosis technique used. RESULTS: In total, 285 patients were included in the study. IA was performed in 64 patients (22.5%). Mean operative time was longer in the patients with IA (IA, 160±31 minutes vs. EA, 138±42 minutes; P<0.001). No differences were observed in intraoperative complications, time to first bowel movement, length of stay, reoperation, or rehospitalization. Time to first flatus was longer in the patients with IA (P=0.049). At 30 days after surgery, there were no differences in the frequency of anastomotic leak (IA, 0% vs. EA, 2.3%; P=0.59), bleeding (IA, 3.1% vs. EA, 2.7%; P>0.99), or intraabdominal abscess (IA, 0% vs. EA, 0.5%; P>0.99). During follow-up, we noted more incisional hernias in patients with EA (IA, 1.6% vs. EA, 11.3%; P=0.01) and a trend toward more hernia in patients with EA in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 7.13; P=0.06). Anastomosis technique had no influence on recurrence. CONCLUSION: For LRH, both IA and EA are safe, with a low incidence of complications when performed by experienced surgeons. IA may be associated with a lower incidence of incisional hernia.

Recurrence following transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a monocentric retrospective series of technically difficult cases.

PURPOSE: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been proposed to overcome surgical difficulties encountered during rectal resection, especially for patients having high body mass index or low rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate oncologic outcomes following TaTME. METHODS: This retrospective study included all consecutive patients with rectal cancer who had a TaTME from 2013 to 2019. The main outcome was the incidence of locoregional recurrence by the end of the follow-up period. RESULTS: Among a total of 81 patients, 96.3% were male, and their mean age was 63±9 years. The mean body mass index was 30.3±5.7 kg/m2, and the median distance from tumor to anal verge was 5.0 cm (interquartile range [IQR], 4.0-6.0 cm). Most patients had a low anterior resection performed (n=80, 98.8%) with a diverting ileostomy (n=64, 79.0%). Distal and circumferential resection margins were positive in 2.5% and 6.2% of patients, respectively. Total mesorectal excision was complete or near complete in 95.1% of patients. A successful resection was achieved in 72 patients (88.9%). After a median follow-up of 27.5 months (IQR, 16.7-48.1 months), 4 patients (4.9%) experienced locoregional recurrence. Anastomotic leaks were observed in 21 patients (25.9%). At the end of the follow-up, 69 patients (85.2%) were stoma-free. CONCLUSION: TaTME was associated with acceptable oncological outcomes, including low locoregional recurrence rates in selected patients with low rectal cancer. Although associated with a high incidence of postoperative morbidities, the use of TaTME enabled a high rate of successful sphincter-saving procedures in selected patients who posed a technical challenge.

Prophylactic retromuscular mesh placement for parastomal hernia prevention: a retrospective cohort study of permanent colostomies and ileostomies.

PURPOSE: Parastomal hernia (PSH) is the most common complication of stoma formation. The safety and efficiency of prophylactically placing mesh to prevent PSH remain controversial. To address this question, we examined the incidence of clinical and radiological PSH when using parastomal prophylactic mesh (PPM). METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-center, cohort study that included all patients with permanent stoma creation between 2015 and 2018. Patients were divided into two groups according to the utilization of PPM or not. RESULTS: During the study period, 185 patients had a permanent stoma created, 144 with colostomy and 41 with ileostomy. PPM was placed in 79 patients. There was no difference in the need for early surgical reintervention (p = 0.652) or rehospitalization (p = 0.314) for stoma-related complications in patients with mesh as compared with patients without. Similarly, there was no difference in operative time (p = 0.782) or in length of hospital stay (p = 0.806). No patients experienced infection of the mesh or required prosthesis removal. There was a lower incidence rate of PSH with PPM placement in patients with permanent colostomy [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.28-0.89); p = 0.018]. In contrast, a higher incidence rate of PSH was observed in patients with ileostomy and PPM [adjusted HR 5.92 (95% confidence interval 1.07-32.65); p = 0.041]. CONCLUSION: Parastomal prophylactic mesh placement to prevent PSH is a safe and efficient approach to reduce the incidence of PSH in patients requiring a permanent colostomy. However, mesh may increase the rate of PSH after permanent ileostomy.

Canadian taTME expert collaboration (CaTaCO) position statement.

INTRODUCTION: Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a novel approach to surgery for rectal cancer. The technique has gained significant popularity in the surgical community due to the promising ability to overcome technical difficulties related to the access of the distal pelvis. Recently, Norwegian surgeons issued a local moratorium related to potential issues with the safety of the procedure. Early adopters of taTME in Canada have recognized the need to create guidelines for its adoption and supervision. The objective of the statement is to provide expert opinion based on the best available evidence and authors' experience. METHODS: The procedure has been performed in Canada since 2014 at different institutions. In 2016, the first Canadian taTME congress was held in the city of Toronto, organized by two of the authors. In early 2019, a multicentric collaborative was established [The Canadian taTME expert Collaboration] which aimed at ensuring safe performance and adoption of taTME in Canada. Recently surgeons from 8 major Canadian rectal cancer centers met in the city of Toronto on December 7 of 2019, to discuss and develop a position statement. There in person, meeting was followed by 4 rounds of Delphi methodology. RESULTS: The generated document focused on the need to ensure a unified approach among rectal cancer surgeons across the country considering its technical complexity and potential morbidity. The position statement addressed four domains: surgical setting, surgeons' requirements, patient selection, and quality assurance. CONCLUSIONS: Authors agree transanal total mesorectal excision is technically demanding and has a significant risk for morbidity. As of now, there is uncertainty for some of the outcomes. We consider it is possible to safely adopt this operation and obtain adequate results, however for this purpose it is necessary to meet specific requirements in different domains.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal villous tumours: Can we rely solely on preoperative biopsies and the surgeon's experience?

Background: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery has become the standard of treatment for rectal villous adenomas. However, the role of preoperative imaging for these lesions is not clear. The aim of this study was to compare the value of preoperative imaging and surgeon clinical staging in the preoperative evaluation of patients with rectal villous adenomas having transanal endoscopic microsurgery resection. Methods: We conducted a single-centre comparative retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery surgery for rectal villous adenomas from 2011 to 2013. The intervention was preoperative imaging versus surgeon clinical staging. The primary outcome was the accuracy of clinical staging by preoperative imaging and surgeon clinical staging according to the histopathologic staging. Results: A total of 146 patients underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery surgery for rectal villous adenomas. One hundred and twelve (76.7%) of those patients had no preoperative imaging while 34 patients (23.3%) had either endorectal ultrasound (22 patients) or magnetic resonance imaging (12 patients). Surgeon staging was accurate in 89.3% of cases whereas staging by endorectal ultrasound was accurate in 40.9% cases and magnetic resonance imaging was accurate in 0% of cases. In the imaging group, inaccurate staging would have led to unnecessary radical surgery in 44.0% of patients. Conclusion: This study was subject to selection bias because of its retrospective nature and the limited number of patients with imaging. Patients with rectal villous tumours without invasive carcinoma on biopsies and without malignant characteristics on appearance in the judgment of an experienced colorectal surgeon might not benefit from preoperative imaging before undergoing transanal endoscopic microsurgery procedures.

Contexte: La microchirurgie endoscopique transanale est devenue le traitement standard des adénomes villeux rectaux. La valeur de l'imagerie préopératoire pour le traitement de ces lésions n'est toutefois pas bien établie. Cette étude visait à comparer l'exactitude de la stadification par imagerie préopératoire et de la stadification clinique par le chirurgien dans le cadre de l'évaluation préopératoire des patients atteints d'adénomes villeux rectaux qui subissent une résection par microchirurgie endoscopique transanale. Méthodes: Nous avons mené une étude de cohorte rétrospective comparative monocentrique chez des patients ayant subi une microchirurgie endoscopique transanale pour un adénome villeux rectal entre 2011 et 2013. Les interventions comparées étaient la stadification par imagerie préopératoire et la stadification clinique par le chirurgien. L'issue principale était l'exactitude de la stadification clinique par imagerie préopératoire et de la stadification clinique par le chirurgien, confirmée par stadification histopathologique. Résultats: Au total, 146 patients ont subi une microchirurgie endoscopique transanale pour le traitement d'un adénome villeux rectal. De ces patients, 112 (76,7 %) n'avaient pas subi d'imagerie préopératoire et 34 (23,3 %) avaient subi une échographie endorectale (22 patients) ou une imagerie par résonance magnétique (12 patients). La stadification par le chirurgien était exacte dans 89,3 % des cas, contre 40,9 % des cas pour l'échographie endorectale et 0 % des cas pour l'imagerie par résonnance magnétique. Dans le groupe ayant subi une imagerie, l'inexactitude de la stadification aurait mené à une chirurgie radicale inutile pour 44,0 % des patients. Conclusion: Cette étude comportait un biais de sélection en raison de sa nature rétrospective et du nombre limité de patients ayant subi une imagerie. L'imagerie préopératoire avant une microchirurgie endoscopique transanale pourrait ne présenter aucun avantage pour les patients présentant des tumeurs villeuses rectales dans les cas où aucun carcinome invasif n'a été détecté par biopsie et où un chirurgien colorectal chevronné n'a détecté aucune caractéristique maligne.

McKittrick-Wheelock Syndrome Presenting with Acute Kidney Injury and Metabolic Alkalosis: Case Report and Narrative Review.

A rare combination of severe volume depletion and electrolyte imbalance caused by a rectal villous adenoma is often referred to as the McKittrick-Wheelock syndrome. Patients usually seek medical care because of chronic hypersecretory diarrhea and display renal failure, metabolic acidosis, hyponatremia, and hypokalemia. We report the case of a 68-year-old woman who presented with this condition but showed unusual features such as severe hypokalemia and metabolic alkalosis, without diarrhea. She subsequently underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS), an innovative procedure in the management of large rectal adenomas. We also provide a narrative review of the literature on this rare entity.

Assessing the safety and outcomes of repeat transanal endoscopic microsurgery.

BACKGROUND: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is the treatment of choice for benign rectal tumors and select early rectal cancers. This surgical approach has become ubiquitous and surgeons are seeing recurrent lesions after TEM resection. This study aims to outline the safety and outcomes of repeat TEM when compared to primary TEM procedures. METHODS: At St. Paul's Hospital, demographic, surgical, pathologic, and follow-up data for patients treated by TEM are maintained in a prospectively populated database. Two groups were established for comparison: patients undergoing first TEM procedure (TEM-P) and patients undergoing repeat TEM procedure (TEM-R). RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2017, 669 patients had their first TEM procedure. Over this time frame, 57 of these patients required repeat TEM procedures, including 15 of these patients treated by 3 or more TEMs. Indications for repeat TEM included recurrence (78%), positive margins (15%), and metachronous lesions (7%). There were no differences between the groups in patient age, gender, or tumor histology. Compared to TEM-P, TEM-R had shorter operative times (38 vs. 52 min, p < 0.001), more distal lesions (5 vs. 7 cm, p < 0.004), and smaller lesions (3 vs. 4 cm, p < 0.0003). The TEM-R group had similar length of hospital stay (0.45 vs. 0.56 days, p = 0.65), rates of clear margins on pathology (81% vs. 88%, p = 0.09), and 30-day readmission rates (7% vs. 4%, p = 0.27) when compared to TEM-P group. TEM-R was more likely to be managed without suturing the surgical defect (72% vs. 32%, p < 0.0001). Repeat TEM was associated with similar post-operative complications as primary TEM graded on the Clavien-Dindo classification scale (Grade 1: 5% vs. 5%, Grade 2: 5% vs. 4%, Grade 3: 5% vs. 1%, p = 0.53). No 30-day mortality occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The St. Paul's Hospital TEM experience suggests repeat TEM is a safe and feasible procedure with similar outcomes as patients undergoing first TEM.

Tattooing or not? A review of current practice and outcomes for laparoscopic colonic resection following endoscopy at a tertiary care centre.

BACKGROUND: Because small colonic tumours may not be visualized or palpated during laparoscopy, location of the lesion must be identified before surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the current recommendation of endoscopic tattooing of lesions prior to laparoscopic colonic resections. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic resection for a colonic lesion at a single tertiary institution between 2013 and 2015 were identified for chart review. RESULTS: In total, 224 patients underwent laparoscopic resection for a benign or malignant colonic lesion during the study period. All patients had a complete colonoscopy preoperatively. In all, 148 patients (66%) had their lesion tattooed at endoscopy. Most lesions were tattooed distally, but 15% were tattooed either proximally, both proximally and distally, or tattooed without specifying location as proximal or distal. Tattoo localization was accurate in 69% of cases. Tattooed lesions were not visible during surgery 21.5% of time; 2 cases were converted to open surgery to identify the lesion. Inaccuracy in endoscopic localization led to change in surgical plan in 16% of surgeries. In the nontattooed group, 1 case was converted to open surgery to localize the lesion, 3 required intraoperative colonoscopy and 1 had positive margins on final pathology. CONCLUSION: To improve surgical planning, we recommend the practice of endoscopic tattooing of all colon lesions at a location just distal to the lesion using multiple injections to cover the circumference of the bowel wall.

CONTEXTE: Comme il n'est pas toujours possible de voir ou de palper les petites tumeurs du côlon durant la laparoscopie, le siège de la lésion doit être localisé avant la chirurgie. Le but de cette étude était d'évaluer l'efficacité de la recommandation actuelle, qui consiste à tatouer les lésions au cours de l'endoscopie, avant les colectomies laparoscopiques. MÉTHODES: Nous avons recensé tous les patients consécutifs ayant subi une résection laparoscopique non urgente d'une lésion du côlon dans un même établissement de soins tertiaires entre 2013 et 2015 afin d'analyser leurs dossiers. RÉSULTATS: En tout, 224 patients ont subi la résection laparoscopique d'une lésion bénigne ou maligne du côlon durant la période visée. Tous les patients ont passé une coloscopie totale avant la chirurgie. Le tatouage endoscopique de la lésion a été effectué pour 148 patients (66 %). La plupart des lésions ont été tatouées au point distal, mais 15 % l'ont été soit au point proximal, soit au point proximal et au point distal, soit sans précision quant à l'emplacement. La localisation par tatouage était exacte dans 69 % des cas. Les lésions tatouées n'étaient pas visibles durant la chirurgie dans 21,5 % des cas; 2 cas ont été convertis en chirurgies effractives afin qu'on puisse repérer la lésion. L'inexactitude de la localisation endoscopique a entraîné la modification du plan chirurgical dans 16 % des chirurgies. Dans le groupe non tatoué, 1 cas a été converti en chirurgie effractive afin qu'on puisse repérer la lésion, 3 cas ont nécessité une coloscopie peropératoire et 1 cas présentait des marges positives à l'examen pathologique final. CONCLUSION: Afin d'améliorer la planification chirurgicale, nous recommandons le tatouage endoscopique de toutes les lésions du côlon, au point distal de la lésion, et de procéder par injections multiples en vue de couvrir la circonférence de la paroi intestinale.

Laparoscopic versus open colonic resection for complicated diverticular disease in the emergency setting: a safe choice? A retrospective comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic colon resection (LCR) with open colon resection (OCR) for complicated diverticular disease (CDD) during emergent hospital admission. METHODS: Charts from all patients undergoing colon resection for CDD during emergent hospital admission at a single academic institution were reviewed. The primary outcomes were overall 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2010, 125 cases were retrieved (49 LCR and 86 OCR). Conversion rate was 5.1%. Overall morbidity significantly decreased with laparoscopic surgery compared with OCR. No mortality occurred with LCR. Prolonged ileus was less frequent (12.8% vs. 32.6%; P = .02), time to oral intake shorter (3 vs. 6 days; P < .01), and LOS shorter (5 vs. 8 days; P = .05) for LCR. CONCLUSIONS: In our series, in the patients selected, LCR for CDD during emergent hospital admission appears to be a safe procedure associated with decreased morbidity, time to oral intake, and LOS compared with OCR.

Laparoscopic emergency surgery for diverticular disease that failed medical treatment: a valuable option? Results of a retrospective comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has become the standard of treatment for elective management of diverticular disease. However, its use in the acute setting remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with open surgery in the acute management of complicated diverticular disease that failed initial medical treatment. SETTINGS: This is a single-center comparative retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing surgery for complicated diverticular disease after an attempt at medical treatment from 2000 to 2011 were selected. INTERVENTION: Laparoscopic versus open surgery was compared. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were overall 30-day morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, time to resume diet, and need for a permanent stoma. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were identified by using medical records: 24 laparoscopic surgery and 18 open surgery. Baseline demographics, ASA classification, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores, Hinchey classification, and Charlson Comorbidity Index did not differ between groups. The mean operative time was 36 minutes longer (p = 0.05) and blood loss was 460 mL less (p < 0.001) for laparoscopic surgery. Two patients (8.3%) in the laparoscopic surgery group required conversion to open surgery. There was no mortality. Overall morbidity was lower favoring laparoscopic surgery (16.7% vs 55.6%; p = 0.01). Two patients in the laparoscopic surgery group experienced an anastomotic leak compared with none in the open surgery group. Mean time to resume diet (3 vs 6.5 days; p < 0.01) and length of stay (5 vs 8 days; p = 0.04) were shorter for the laparoscopic surgery group. Rate of permanent stoma at last follow-up (median, 332 days) did not differ significantly between groups. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery for patients in whom medical treatment for complicated diverticular disease failed is associated with favorable outcomes, including a reduced rate of morbidity and a shorter length of stay. When applied to selected patients, this approach appears to be a safe procedure with a low rate of conversion.