Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing primary resection and anastomosis versus Hartmann’s procedure for the management of acute perforated diverticulitis with generalised peritonitis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Surgical strategies for acute perforated diverticulitis with generalised peritonitis remain controversial. This study aimed to meta-analyse trials comparing primary resection and anastomosis (PRA) to Hartmann’s procedure (HP) for Hinchey III/IV diverticulitis.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify observational studies and randomised control trials (RCTs) of patients with Hinchey III/IV diverticulitis undergoing sigmoidectomy that compared PRA to HP. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed systematically (Newcastle–Ottawa, Jadad and Cochrane risk of bias scores) and a meta-analysis was performed.

Results

After removal of duplicates, 12 studies including 4 RCTs were identified. The analysis included 918 patients, of whom 367 (39.98%) underwent PRA. Both the initial stoma rate (risk ratio [RR] persistent stoma 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26, 0.71, p = 0.001; I2 = 99%, p < 0.0001) and the rate of permanent stoma after combining the first (emergency surgery) and second (stoma reversal) procedures were lower in the PRA group. There was no difference in in 30-day mortality; however, PRA resulted in a reduction in overall mortality as well as major complications after the initial operation (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46, 0.97, p = 0.03; I2 = 22%, p = 0.26), stoma reversal (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26, 0.92, p = 0.03; I2 = 0%, p = 0.58) and when combining both procedures (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51, 0.88, p = 0.005; I2 = 0%, heterogeneity p = 0.58). A subgroup analysis of stoma reversal rates using data from only RCTs were consistent (RR permanent stoma, 0.33, 95% CI 0.13, 0.85, p = 0.02; I2 = 77%, p = 0.004) with the findings of the overall analysis.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrates that PRA used in the management of haemodynamically stable patients with Hinchey grade III/IV diverticulitis leads to a lower overall persistent stoma rate, with reduced morbidity compared with the traditional management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bharucha AE, Parthasarathy G, Ditah I et al (2015) Temporal trends in the incidence and natural history of diverticulitis: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 110(11):1589–1596

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Etzioni DA, Mack TM, Beart RW Jr, Kaiser AM (2009) Diverticulitis in the United States: 1998–2005: changing patterns of disease and treatment. Ann Surg 249(2):210–217

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Feingold D, Steele SR, Lee S et al (2014) Practice parameters for the treatment of sigmoid diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum 57(3):284–294

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sheth AA, Longo W, Floch MH (2008) Diverticular disease and diverticulitis. Am J Gastroenterol 103(6):1550–1556

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tursi A, Brandimarte G, Giorgetti G, Elisei W, Maiorano M, Aiello F (2008) The clinical picture of uncomplicated versus complicated diverticulitis of the colon. Dig Dis Sci 53(9):2474–2479

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stollman NH, Raskin JB (1999) Diagnosis and management of diverticular disease of the colon in adults. Ad Hoc Practice Parameters. Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol 94(11):3110–3121

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hernandez-Guerrero A, Abdo-Francis J, Brito-Lugo P, Dela Torre-Bravo A, Marin-Pineda R, Stoopen-Rometti M (2008) Gastroenterology diagnosis and treatment guidelines of diverticular disease of the colon. Clinical and diagnostic. Rev Gastroenterol Mex 73(4):258–260

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Andersen JC, Bundgaard L, Elbrond H, Laurberg S, Walker LR, Stovring J (2012) Danish national guidelines for treatment of diverticular disease. Dan Med J 59(5):C4453

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kruis W, Germer CT, Leifeld L (2014) Diverticular disease: guidelines of the German society for gastroenterology, digestive and metabolic diseases and the German society for general and visceral surgery. Digestion 90(3):190–207

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cuomo R, Barbara G, Pace F et al (2014) Italian consensus conference for colonic diverticulosis and diverticular disease. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2(5):413–442

    Google Scholar 

  11. Shahedi K, Fuller G, Bolus R et al (2013) Long-term risk of acute diverticulitis among patients with incidental diverticulosis found during colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 11(12):1609–1613

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Stollman N, Smalley W, Hirano I (2015) American gastroenterological association institute guideline on the management of acute diverticulitis. Gastroenterology 149(7):1944–1949

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zorcolo L, Covotta L, Carlomagno N, Bartolo DC (2003) Safety of primary anastomosis in emergency colo-rectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 5(3):262–269

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bielecki K, Kaminski P, Klukowski M (2002) Large bowel perforation: morbidity and mortality. Tech Coloproctol 6(3):177–182

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Krukowski ZH, Matheson NA (1984) Emergency surgery for diverticular disease complicated by generalized and faecal peritonitis: a review. Br J Surg 71(12):921–927

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hinchey EJ, Schaal PG, Richards GK (1978) Treatment of perforated diverticular disease of the colon. Adv Surg 12:85–109

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sher ME, Agachan F, Bortul M, Nogueras JJ, Weiss EG, Wexner SD (1997) Laparoscopic surgery for diverticulitis. Surg Endosc 11(3):264–267

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Salem L, Anaya DA, Roberts KE, Flum DR (2005) Hartmann's colectomy and reversal in diverticulitis: a population-level assessment. Dis Colon Rectum 48(5):988–995

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Constantinides VA, Heriot A, Remzi F et al (2007) Operative strategies for diverticular peritonitis: a decision analysis between primary resection and anastomosis versus Hartmann's procedures. Ann Surg 245(1):94–103

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Dandekar NV, McCann WJ (1969) Primary resection and anastomosis in the management of perforation of diverticulitis of the sigmoid flexure and diffuse peritonitis. Dis Colon Rectum 12(3):172–175

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zeitoun G, Laurent A, Rouffet F et al (2000) Multicentre, randomized clinical trial of primary versus secondary sigmoid resection in generalized peritonitis complicating sigmoid diverticulitis. Br J Surg 87(10):1366–1374

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Greif JM, Fried G, McSherry CK (1980) Surgical treatment of perforated diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon. Dis Colon Rectum 23(7):483–487

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. O'Sullivan GC, Murphy D, O'Brien MG, Ireland A (1996) Laparoscopic management of generalized peritonitis due to perforated colonic diverticula. Am J Surg 171(4):432–434

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Myers E, Hurley M, O'Sullivan GC, Kavanagh D, Wilson I, Winter DC (2008) Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis. Br J Surg 95(1):97–101

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Taylor CJ, Layani L, Ghusn MA, White SI (2006) Perforated diverticulitis managed by laparoscopic lavage. ANZ J Surg 76(11):962–965

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hold M, Denck H, Bull P (1990) Surgical management of perforating diverticular disease in Austria. Int J Colorectal Dis 5(4):195–199

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Thaler K, Neumann F, Gero A, Kreuzer W (2000) Utility of appropriate peritonitis grading in the surgical management of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis. Colorectal Dis 2(6):359–363

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schilling MK, Maurer CA, Kollmar O, Buchler MW (2001) Primary vs. secondary anastomosis after sigmoid colon resection for perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey Stage III and IV): a prospective outcome and cost analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 44(5):699–703 (discussion 703–695)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gooszen AW, Gooszen HG, Veerman W et al (2001) Operative treatment of acute complications of diverticular disease: primary or secondary anastomosis after sigmoid resection. Eur J Surg 167(1):35–39

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Regenet N, Pessaux P, Hennekinne S et al (2003) Primary anastomosis after intraoperative colonic lavage vs. Hartmann's procedure in generalized peritonitis complicating diverticular disease of the colon. Int J Colorectal Dis 18(6):503–507

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vermeulen J, Akkersdijk GP, Gosselink MP et al (2007) Outcome after emergency surgery for acute perforated diverticulitis in 200 cases. Digest Surg 24(5):361–366

    Google Scholar 

  32. Trenti L, Biondo S, Golda T et al (2011) Generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis: Hartmann's procedure or primary anastomosis? Int J Colorectal Dis 26(3):377–384

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Alizai PH, Schulze-Hagen M, Klink CD et al (2013) Primary anastomosis with a defunctioning stoma versus Hartmann's procedure for perforated diverticulitis—a comparison of stoma reversal rates. Int J Colorectal Dis 28(12):1681–1688

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Liang S, Russek K, Franklin ME Jr (2012) Damage control strategy for the management of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis: laparoscopic lavage and drainage vs. laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure. Surg Endosc 26(10):2835–2842

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Karoui M, Champault A, Pautrat K, Valleur P, Cherqui D, Champault G (2009) Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or primary anastomosis with defunctioning stoma for Hinchey 3 complicated diverticulitis: results of a comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 52(4):609–615

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Angenete E, Thornell A, Burcharth J et al (2016) Laparoscopic lavage is feasible and safe for the treatment of perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: the first results from the randomized controlled trial DILALA. Ann Surg 263(1):117–122

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schultz JK, Yaqub S, Wallon C et al (2015) Laparoscopic lavage vs primary resection for acute perforated diverticulitis: the SCANDIV randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13):1364–1375

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Vennix S, Musters GD, Mulder IM et al (2015) Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 386(10000):1269–1277

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Marshall JR, Buchwald PL, Gandhi J et al (2017) Laparoscopic lavage in the management of Hinchey grade III diverticulitis: a systematic review. Ann Surg 265(4):670–676

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Cirocchi R, Di Saverio S, Weber DG et al (2017) Laparoscopic lavage versus surgical resection for acute diverticulitis with generalised peritonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 21(2):93–110

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shaikh FM, Stewart PM, Walsh SR, Davies RJ (2017) Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or surgical resection for acute perforated sigmoid diverticulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 38:130–137

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Acuna SA, Wood T, Chesney TR et al (2018) Operative strategies for perforated diverticulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 61(12):1442–1453

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Cirocchi R, Afshar S, Shaban F et al (2018) Perforated sigmoid diverticulitis: Hartmann's procedure or resection with primary anastomosis—a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials. Tech Coloproctol 22(10):743–753

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Shaban F, Carney K, McGarry K, Holtham S (2018) Perforated diverticulitis: To anastomose or not to anastomose? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 58:11–21

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Gachabayov M, Oberkofler CE, Tuech JJ, Hahnloser D, Bergamaschi R (2018) Resection with primary anastomosis vs nonrestorative resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 20(9):753–770

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lambrichts DPV, Vennix S, Musters GD et al (2019) Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (LADIES): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, superiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 20:20

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lee JM, Bai PCJ, El Hechi M et al (2019) Hartmann's procedure vs primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy for acute diverticulitis: nationwide analysis of 2,729 emergency surgery patients. J Am Coll Surg 20:20

    Google Scholar 

  48. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283(15):2008–2012

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA et al (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64(4):383–394

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Luo D, Wan X, Liu J, Tong T (2018) Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat Methods Med Res 27(6):1785–1805

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T (2014) Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 14(1):135

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Oberkofler CE, Rickenbacher A, Raptis DA et al (2012) A multicenter randomized clinical trial of primary anastomosis or Hartmann's procedure for perforated left colonic diverticulitis with purulent or fecal peritonitis. Ann Surg 256(5):819–826 (discussion 826–817)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Bridoux V, Regimbeau JM, Ouaissi M et al (2017) Hartmann's procedure or primary anastomosis for generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis: a prospective multicenter randomized trial (DIVERTI). J Am Coll Surg 225(6):798–805

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Binda GA, Karas JR, Serventi A et al (2012) Primary anastomosis vs nonrestorative resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: a prematurely terminated randomized controlled trial. Colorect Dis 14(11):1403–1410

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Richter S, Lindemann W, Kollmar O, Pistorius GA, Maurer CA, Schilling MK (2006) One-stage sigmoid colon resection for perforated sigmoid diverticulitis (Hinchey stages III and IV). World J Surg 30(6):1027–1032

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Downing A, Morris EJ, Richards M et al (2015) Health-related quality of life after colorectal cancer in England: a patient-reported outcomes study of individuals 12 to 36 months after diagnosis. J Clin Oncol 33(6):616–624

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Banerjee S, Leather AJ, Rennie JA, Samano N, Gonzalez JG, Papagrigoriadis S (2005) Feasibility and morbidity of reversal of Hartmann's. Colorectal Dis 7(5):454–459

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Aziz O, Constantinides V, Tekkis PP et al (2006) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 13(3):413–424

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Tilney HS, Sains PS, Lovegrove RE, Reese GE, Heriot AG, Tekkis PP (2007) Comparison of outcomes following ileostomy versus colostomy for defunctioning colorectal anastomoses. World J Surg 31(5):1142–1151

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Caille C, Collard M, Moszkowicz D, AlDJ P, Maggiori L, Panis Y (2019) Reversal of Hartmann's procedure in patients following failed colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: an analysis of 45 consecutive cases. Colorectal Dis 20:20

    Google Scholar 

  65. Levack MM, Savitt LR, Berger DL et al (2012) Sigmoidectomy syndrome? Patients' perspectives on the functional outcomes following surgery for diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum 55(1):10–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Jimenez-Rodriguez RM, Segura-Sampedro JJ, Rivero-Belenchon I et al (2017) Is the interval from surgery to ileostomy closure a risk factor for low anterior resection syndrome? Colorectal Dis 19(5):485–490

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Stollman N, Raskin JB (2004) Diverticular disease of the colon. Lancet 363(9409):631–639

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Breitenstein S, Kraus A, Hahnloser D, Decurtins M, Clavien PA, Demartines N (2007) Emergency left colon resection for acute perforation: primary anastomosis or Hartmann's procedure? A case-matched control study. World J Surg 31(11):2117–2124

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Wong WD, Wexner SD, Lowry A et al (2000) Practice parameters for the treatment of sigmoid diverticulitis—supporting documentation. The Standards Task Force. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum 43(3):290–297

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Binda G, Karas J, Serventi A, Bergamaschi R, Amato A (2011) Primary anastomosis versus Hartmann's for perforated diverticulitis: a randomized controlled trial [Journal: Conference Abstract]. Colorectal Dis 13:5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02704.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Boyd-Carson H, Doleman B, Herrod PJJ et al (2019) Association between surgeon special interest and mortality after emergency laparotomy. Br J Surg 106(7):940–948

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. O. K. Ryan and Éanna J. Ryan contributed equally to the manuscript.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University College Dublin School of Medicine and Medical Science, Dublin, Ireland

    O. K. Ryan, Éanna J. Ryan, B. Creavin, M. E. Kelly & D. C. Winter

  2. Centre for Colorectal Disease, St. Vincent’s University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland

    Éanna J. Ryan, B. Creavin, M. R. Boland, M. E. Kelly & D. C. Winter

Authors
  1. O. K. Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Éanna J. Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Creavin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. R. Boland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. E. Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D. C. Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Éanna J. Ryan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no external funding or conflict of interests to declare.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Institutional review board approval was not required due to the studies meta-analytic and retrospective nature.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ryan, O.K., Ryan, É.J., Creavin, B. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing primary resection and anastomosis versus Hartmann’s procedure for the management of acute perforated diverticulitis with generalised peritonitis. Tech Coloproctol 24, 527–543 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02172-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02172-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation