Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28197792›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2017

Laparoscopic lavage versus surgical resection for acute diverticulitis with generalised peritonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

R Cirocchi, S Di Saverio, D G Weber, R Taboła, I Abraha, J Randolph, A Arezzo, G A Binda

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04254224 (Scandinavian Diverticulitis Trial SCANDIV II), which is not on this map. Cited by 35 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04254224 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Scandinavian Diverticulitis Trial SCANDIV II: Treatment of Acute Complicated Diverticulitis: a Prospective Observational Study

TypeobservationalSponsorUppsala UniversityRan2018 to 2024Enrolled500ConditionsDiverticulitis ColonArmscolon resection, stoma
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Laparoscopic versus open resection for sigmoid diverticulitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Long-Term Results After Laparoscopic Lavage for Perforated Diverticulitis Purulent Peritonitis in Sweden: A Population-Based Observational Study.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. The value of CA125 in predicting acute complicated colonic diverticulitis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023
    Observational
  16. Article
  17. State-of-the-art surgery for sigmoid diverticulitis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in emergency colorectal surgery.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

R CirocchiDepartment of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Hospital of Terni, University of Perugia, Terni, Italy.
S Di SaverioGeneral (Colorectal), Emergency and Trauma Surgery Service, Maggiore Hospital Regional Emergency Surgery and Trauma Center - Bologna Local Health District, Bologna, Italy. salo75@inwind.it.
D G WeberDepartment of General Surgery, Royal Perth Hospital, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
R TabołaDepartment of Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, Medical University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland.
I AbrahaHealth Planning Service, Department of Epidemiology, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Perugia, Italy.
J RandolphTift College of Education, Mercer University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
A ArezzoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
G A BindaDepartment of Surgery, Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy.
Ente Ospedaliero Ospedali Galliera · ITMercer University · USUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AUUniversity of Perugia · ITUniversity of Turin · ITUniversity of Wrocław · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates current evidence on the therapeutic role of laparoscopic lavage in the management of diverticular peritonitis. A systematic review of the literature was performed on PubMed until June 2016, according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. All randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic lavage with surgical resection, irrespective of anastomosis or stoma formation, were analysed. After assessment of titles and full text, 3 randomised trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall the quality of evidence was low because of serious concerns regarding the risk of bias and imprecision. In the laparoscopic lavage group, there was a statistically significant higher rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.34-4.83), a lower rate of postoperative wound infection (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.51), and a shorter length of postoperative hospital stay during index admission (WMD = -2.03, 95% CI -2.59 to -1.47). There were no statistically significant differences in terms of postoperative mortality at index admission or within 30 days from intervention in all Hinchey stages and in Hinchey stage III, postoperative mortality at 12 months, surgical reintervention at index admission or within 30-90 days from index intervention, stoma rate at 12 months, or adverse events within 90 days of any Clavien-Dindo grade. The surgical reintervention rate at 12 months from index intervention was significantly lower in the laparoscopic lavage group (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.86), but these data included emergency reintervention and planned intervention (stoma reversal). This systematic review and meta-analysis did not demonstrate any significant difference between laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and traditional surgical resection in patients with peritonitis from perforated diverticular disease, in terms of postoperative mortality and early reoperation rate. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with a lower rate of stoma formation. However, the finding of a significantly higher rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess in patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage compared to those who underwent surgical resection is of concern. Since the aim of surgery in patients with peritonitis is to treat the sepsis, if one technique is associated with more postoperative abscesses, then the technique is ineffective. Even so, laparoscopic lavage does not appear fundamentally inferior to traditional surgical resection and this technique may achieve reasonable outcomes with minimal invasiveness.

Indexed as

Abdominal AbscessAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDiverticulitisFemaleHumansIntestinal PerforationIntestinesLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPeritoneal LavagePeritonitisAbdominal sepsisAcute diverticulitisColostomyHartmann resectionHinchey classificationIntra-abdominal infectionsLaparoscopic lavageLaparoscopyPeritonitisSigmoid resection

Identifiers

PMID28197792
OpenAlexW2587997535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.