ReviewAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2026
Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Diverticular Disease: A Structured Review Across Clinical Settings and Operative Strategies.
Review in Annals of gastroenterological surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic surgery is increasingly used to treat colonic diverticulitis; however, its role in emergency, perforated, high-risk, and procedure-specific settings remains uncertain. This structured narrative review evaluated and synthesized comparative evidence by clinical setting, operative strategy, and patient risk profile to provide a clinical decision-making framework for identifying settings in which laparoscopy may offer meaningful benefits and those in which its role remains uncertain. In elective settings, randomized trials and observational studies generally demonstrated short-term advantages of laparoscopy, including reduced postoperative morbidity, less pain, faster recovery, and shorter hospitalization, although clear mid- or long-term superiority has not been established. In emergency, perforated, and high-risk settings, observational and nationwide database studies reported favorable short-term outcomes of laparoscopy; however, these findings were strongly influenced by patient selection, disease severity, and institutional expertise. Benefits were most consistent for resection-based procedures but were less clear for laparoscopic Hartmann procedures and inconsistent for lavage- or drainage-based strategies. Stoma creation rates tended to be lower after laparoscopy in selected cohorts, although this finding depended on disease severity and operative strategy. Evidence regarding intraoperative complications remains limited. Overall, laparoscopic surgery is associated with favorable short-term outcomes, with the most consistent evidence arising from elective diverticular surgery. In emergency surgery and perforated disease, however, the available evidence remains predominantly observational and susceptible to selection bias. These findings support a selective, context-dependent approach based on disease severity, patient condition, operative strategy, and institutional expertise, with careful surgical planning and timely conversion when necessary.
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.