Robotic-assisted surgery for complicated and non-complicated diverticulitis: a single-surgeon case series

  • Julia Xia
  • Terrah Jean Paul Olson
  • Seth A. RosenEmail author
Original Article


Laparoscopic colectomy is the preferred approach for surgical management of non-complicated diverticulitis, with lower complication rates, shorter length of stay, and decreased narcotic use compared with open surgery. Complicated diverticulitis, characterized by abscess, fistula or stricture, is more difficult to manage with minimally invasive surgery, with reports of higher conversion rates, prolonged operative time, longer length of stay, and increased complication rates. The robotic platform may provide an alternative safe and feasible option for managing complicated diverticulitis with minimally invasive surgery. A prospectively maintained database of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery performed at our university-affiliated community hospital was used to identify consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgery for complicated or non-complicated diverticulitis. Thirty-two patients with non-complicated diverticulitis and 36 patients with complicated diverticulitis had surgery between January, 1, 2014 and September 30, 2017. The database was used to compare the two groups of patients in regard to operative time, estimated blood loss, ureteral stent usage, conversions, ostomies, pelvic drains, post-operative complications, length of stay, return of bowel function, and post-operative narcotic use. Comparison of the two groups revealed significant differences in operative times (172 vs. 196 min, p = 0.01), conversions (3.1% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.03), ostomies (9.4% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.04), and pelvic drains (3.2% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.02). No significant differences were noted for estimated blood loss, complications, return of bowel function, narcotic use, length of stay, or readmissions. Four complicated diverticulitis patients had intra-operative ureteral stents, and there were no ureteral injuries in either group. Patients with complicated diverticulitis required longer operative time, and more often required conversion, an ostomy, and a pelvic drain. Robotic-assisted surgery is safe and feasible for both non-complicated and complicated diverticulitis.


Complicated diverticulitis Robotic Conversion Ostomy Narcotic Ureteral stent 



The authors thank Sebastian Perez, MSPH, and Satyen Tripathi, MA, for their contributions to this study.

Author contributions

TJPO and SAR substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data. JX, TJPO, SAR drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content. SAR final approval of the version to be published.



Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Rosen has been paid by Intuitive Surgical for teaching courses on robotic colorectal surgery. Dr. Rosen has been paid by CSATS as an expert reviewer of robotic colorectal surgery videos. Dr. Paul Olson and Ms. Xia declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Ambrosetti P, Gervaz P (2016) Management of sigmoid diverticulitis: an update. Updates Surg 68:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Senagore AJ, Duepree HJ, Delaney CP, Dissanaike S, Brady KM, Fazio VW (2002) Cost structure of laparoscopic and open sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease: similarities and differences. Dis Colon Rectum 45(4):485–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Senagore AJ (2005) Laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease. Surg Clin North Am 85(1):19–24, viiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Purkayastha S, Constantinides VA, Tekkis PP et al (2006) Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for diverticular disease: a meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies. Dis Colon Rectum 49(4):446–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klarenbeek BR, Veenhof AA, Bergamaschi R et al (2009) Laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticulitis decreases major morbidity rates: a randomized control trial: short-term results of the Sigma Trial. Ann Surg 249:39–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vargas HD, Ramirez RT, Hoffman GC et al (2000) Defining the role of laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum 43(12):1726–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scheidbach H, Schneider C, Rose J et al (2004) Laparoscopic approach to treatment of sigmoid diverticulitis: changes in the spectrum of indications and results of a prospective, multicenter study on 1545 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 47(11):1883–1888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gervaz P, Pikarsky A, Utech M et al (2001) Converted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endos 15(8):827–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marusch F, Gastinger I, Schneider C et al (2001) Importance of conversion for results obtained with laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 44(2):207–214 (discussion 214–16)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holzmacher JL, Luka S, Aziz M, Amdur RL, Agarwal S, Obias V (2017) The use of robotic and laparoscopic stapling devices during minimally invasive colon and rectal surgery: a comparison. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 27(2):151–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller PE, Dao H, Paluvoi N, Bailey M, Margolin D, Shah N, Vargas HD (2016) Comparison of 30-day postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic vs robotic colectomy. J Am Coll Surg 223:369–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hollis RH, Cannon JA, Singletary BA, Korb ML, Hawn MT, Heslin MJ (2016) Understanding the value of both laparoscopic and robotic approaches compared to the open approach in colorectal surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 26(11):850–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dehal A, Patel S, Park H, Nguyen P, Yuhan R, Ruan J (2016) Robotic colorectal surgery: our initial experience. Am Surg 82:907–910Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elliot PA, McLemore EC, Abbass MA, Abbas MA (2015) Robotic versus laparoscopic resection for sigmoid diverticulitis with fistula. J Robot Surg 9(2):137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maciel V, Lujan HJ, Plasencia G et al. Diverticular disease complicated with colovesical fistula: laparoscopic versus robotic management. Int Surg 2014; 99(3):203–210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gorgun E, Aytac E, Gurland B, Costedio MM (2015) Case-matched comparison of robotic vs laparoscopic colorectal surgery: initial institutional experience. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 25(5):e148–e151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deutsch GB, Anantha Sathyanarayana S, Gunabushanam V et al (2012) Robotic vs laparoscopic colorectal surgery: an institutional experience. Surg Endosc 26:956–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL
  19. 19.
    Stam MAW, Draaisma WA, Pasker PCM, Consten ECJ, Broeders IAMJ (2017) Sigmoid resection for diverticulitis is more difficult than for malignancies. Int J Colorectal Dis 32:891–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Celentano V (2017) Laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticulitis is rarely a suitable case for the initial phase of the learning curve. Int J Colorectal Dis 32:1095–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Köckerling F, Schneider C, Reymond MA et al (1999) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery study group (LCSSG). Laparoscopic resection of sigmoid diverticulitis–results of a multicenter study. Surg Endosc 13:567–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ragupathi M, Ramos-Valadez DI, Patel CB, Haas EM (2011) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for recurrent diverticulitis: experience in consecutive cases and a review of the literature. Surg Endosc 25(1):199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rotholtz NA, Canelas AG, Bun ME, Laporte M, Sadava EE, Ferrentino N, Guckenheimer SA (2016) Laparoscopic approach in complicated diverticular disease. World J Gastrointest Surg 8(4):308–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosen DR, Hwang GS, Ault GT. Ortega AE, Cologne KG (2017) Operative management of diverticulitis in a tertiary care center. Am J Surg 214:37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bhakta A, Tafen M, Glotzer O et al (2016) Laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for complicated diverticulitis is safe: review of 576 consecutive colectomies. Surg Endosc 30:1629–1634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Laurent SR, Detroz B, Detry O, Degauque C, Honore P, Meurisse M (2005) Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for fistulized diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum 48(1):148–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Abbass MA, Tsay AT, Abbas MA (2013) Laparoscopic resection of chronic sigmoid diverticulitis with fistula. JSLS 17:636–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wen Y, Althans AR, Brady JT et al (2017) Evaluating surgical management and outcomes of colovaginal fistulas. Am J Surg 213:553–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Juo YY, Hyder O, Haider AH, Camp M, Lidor A, Ahuja N (2014) Is minimally invasive colon resection better than traditional approaches?: first comprehensive national examination with propensity score matching. JAMA Surg 149:177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA, Blasco JA, Guerra M, Andradas E, Plana MN (2010) Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 252:254–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Park EJ, Cho MS, Baek SJ et al (2015) Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 261:129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim CW, Kim CH, Baik SH (2014) Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 18:816–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryEmory UniversityJohns CreekUSA

Personalised recommendations