ArticleWideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques2016
Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage: our experience and review of the literature.
Article in Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic lavage and drainage for Hinchey III diverticulitis: review of technical aspects.Updates in surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Evaluation of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for perforated diverticulitis: a national registry-based study.The British journal of surgery · 2024Observational
- Complicated Diverticular Disease.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2021Review
- A Hospital Protocol for Decision Making in Emergency Admission for Acute Diverticulitis: Initial Results from Small Cohort Series.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Article
- Modified transverse coloplasty pouch: new reconstruction techniques after total mesorectal excision. Our experience.Il Giornale di chirurgiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOver the years various therapeutic techniques for diverticulitis have been developed. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) appears to be a safe and useful treatment, and it could be an effective alternative to colonic resection in emergency surgery.
aimThis prospective observational study aims to assess the safety and benefits of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in perforated sigmoid diverticulitis. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe surgically treated 70 patients urgently for complicated sigmoid diverticulitis. Thirty-two (45.7%) patients underwent resection of the sigmoid colon and creation of a colostomy (Hartmann technique); 21 (30%) patients underwent peritoneal laparoscopic lavage; 4 (5.7%) patients underwent colostomy by the Mikulicz technique; and the remaining 13 (18.6%) patients underwent resection of the sigmoid colon and creation of a colorectal anastomosis with a protective ileostomy.
resultsThe 66 patients examined were divided into 3 groups: 32 patients were treated with urgent surgery according to the Hartmann procedure; 13 patients were treated with resection and colorectal anastomosis; 21 patients were treated urgently with laparoscopic peritoneal lavage. We had no intraoperative complications. The overall mortality was 4.3% (3 patients). In the LPL group the morbidity rate was 33.3%.
conclusionsCurrently it cannot be said that LPL is better in terms of mortality and morbidity than colonic resection. These data may, however, be proven wrong by greater attention in the selection of patients to undergo laparoscopic peritoneal lavage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.