Are We Resecting Too Much Colon in Perforated Diverticulitis?

Initially, the Hartmann's procedure was done to reduce mortality in surgery cases of malignant rectal lesions, and not benign disease. However, the procedure was popularized in the management of perforated diverticular disease (PDD) in the 1970s. Herein, we present a case of a patient who had laparotomy and colostomy for PDD. During the post-operative planning for reversal of the diverting colostomy, a contrast study was done that revealed that most of the sigmoid colon was in fact healthy. In this patient, the colon was severed at the point of the perforation and exteriorized, which allowed time for the resolution of the gut inflammatory changes. Thus, Hartmann's operation would have led to the unnecessary resection of the healthy sigmoid colon and possibly condemned the patient to an irreversible stoma. In severe PDD, where a Hartmann's procedure is considered, one could sever the colon at the site of perforation and bring out a colostomy while tacking the closed, unresected distal end near the ostomy. Further contrast studies of the colon could assist in planning resection and anastomosis.

Advantages of Damage Control Strategy With Abdominal Negative Pressure and Instillation in Patients With Diffuse Peritonitis From Perforated Diverticular Disease.

Purpose. To evaluate the results of Damage Control Strategy (DCS) in the treatment of generalized peritonitis from perforated diverticular disease in patients with preoperative severe systemic diseases. Methods. All the patients with diffuse peritonitis (Hinchey 3 and 4) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score ≥3 were included and underwent DCS consisting of a 2-step procedure. The first was peritoneal lavage, perforated colon-stapled resection, and temporary abdominal closure with negative pressure wound therapy combined with instillation. The second step, 48 hours later, included the possibility of restoring intestinal continuity basing on local and general patients' conditions. Results. Thirty patients (18 [60%] women and 12 [40%] men, median age 68.5 [range = 35-84] years) were included (18 [60%] ASA III, 11 [36.7%] ASA IV, and 1 [0.03%] ASA V). Seven patients (23.3%) showed sepsis and 1 (3.33%) septic shock. At second surgery, 24 patients (80%) received a colorectal anastomosis and 6 patients (20%) underwent a Hartmann's procedure. Median hospital stay was 18 days (range = 12-62). Postoperative morbidity rate was 23.3% (7/30) and included 1 anastomotic leak treated with Hartmann's procedure. Consequently, at discharge from hospital, 23 patients (76.6%) were free of stoma. Primary fascial closure was possible in all patients. Conclusions. DCS with temporary abdominal closure by negative pressure wound therapy combined with instillation in patients with diffuse peritonitis from complicated diverticulitis could represent a feasible surgical option both in hemodynamically stable and no stable patients, showing encouraging results including a low stoma rate and an acceptable morbidity rate.

Damage control surgery in perforated diverticulitis: ongoing peritonitis at second surgery predicts a worse outcome.

PURPOSE: Damage control strategy (DCS) is a two-staged procedure for the treatment of perforated diverticular disease complicated by generalized peritonitis. The aim of this retrospective multicenter cohort study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of an ongoing peritonitis at the time of second surgery. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent DCS for perforated diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon with generalized peritonitis at four surgical centers were included. Damage control strategy is a two-stage emergency procedure: limited resection of the diseased colonic segment, closure of oral and aboral colon, and application of a negative pressure assisted abdominal closure system at the initial surgery followed by second laparotomy 48 h later. Therein, decision for definite reconstruction (anastomosis or Hartmann's procedure (HP)) is made. An ongoing peritonitis at second surgery was defined as presence of visible fibrinous, purulent, or fecal peritoneal fluid. Microbiologic findings from peritoneal smear at first surgery were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Between 5/2011 and 7/2017, 74 patients underwent a DCS for perforated diverticular disease complicated by generalized peritonitis (female: 40, male: 34). At second surgery, 55% presented with ongoing peritonitis (OP). Patients with OP had higher rate of organ failure (32 vs. 9%, p = 0.024), higher Mannheim Peritonitis Index (25.2 vs. 18.9; p = 0.001), and increased operation time (105 vs. 84 min., p = 0.008) at first surgery. An anastomosis was constructed in all patients with no OP (nOP) at second surgery as opposed to 71% in the OP group (p < 0.001). Complication rate (44 vs. 24%, p = 0.092), mortality (12 vs. 0%, p = 0.061), overall number of surgeries (3.4 vs. 2.4, p = 0.017), enterostomy rate (76 vs. 36%, p = 0.001), and length of hospital stay (25 vs. 18.8 days, p = 0.03) were all increased in OP group. OP at second surgery occurred significantly more often in patients with Enterococcus infection (81 vs. 44%, p = 0.005) and with fungal infection (100 vs. 49%, p = 0.007). In a multivariate analysis, Enterococcus infection was associated with increased morbidity (67 vs. 21%, p < 0.001), enterostomy rate (81 vs. 48%, p = 0.017), and anastomotic leakage (29 vs. 6%, p = 0.042), whereas fungal peritonitis was associated with an increased mortality (43 vs. 4%, p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Ongoing peritonitis after DCS is a predictor of a worse outcome in patients with perforated diverticulitis. Enterococcal and fungal infections have a negative impact on occurrence of OP and overall outcome.

Damage control strategy for the treatment of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis.

BACKGROUND: The best surgical strategy for the management of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis of the sigmoid colon is not clearly defined. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the value of a damage control strategy. METHODS: All patients who underwent emergency laparotomy for perforated diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon with generalized peritonitis between 2010 and 2015 were included. The damage control strategy (study group), included a two- stage procedure: limited resection of the diseased colonic segment, closure of proximal colon and distal stump, and application of an abdominal vacuum at the initial surgery followed by second-look laparotomy 24-48 h later At this point a choice was made between anastomosis and Hartmann's procedure. The control group consisted of patients receiving definitive reconstruction (anastomosis or Hartmann's procedure) at the initial operation. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were included in the study. Damage control strategy was applied in 19 patients and the control group consisted of 18 patients. Both groups were comparable in terms of demographics, severity of peritonitis, and comorbidities. The overall postoperative mortality was 11 % (n = 4). There were no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding postoperative morbidity and mortality; however, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the control group had a stoma after the initial hospital stay (83 vs. 47 %, p = 0.038). This difference was still significant after adjustment for sex, age, Mannheim Peritonitis Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class and presence of septic shock at presentation. At the end of the follow-up period, 15 of 17 survivors in the study group and 13 of 16 survivors in the control group had their intestinal continuity restored (p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: Damage control strategy in patients with generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis leads to a significantly reduced stoma rate after the initial hospital stay without an increased risk of postoperative morbidity.