Laparoscopic lavage is superior to colon resection for perforated purulent diverticulitis:a meta-analysis

PURPOSE: Perforated diverticulitis often requires surgery with a colon resection such as Hartmann’s procedure, with inherent morbidity. Recent studies suggest that laparoscopic lavage may be an alternative surgical treatment. The aim of this study was to compare re-operations, morbidity, and mortality as well as health economic outcomes between laparoscopic lavage and colon resection for perforated purulent diverticulitis. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and Embase were searched. Published randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective cohorts with laparoscopic lavage and colon resection as interventions were identified. Trial limitations were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Re-operations, complications at 90 days classified according to Clavien-Dindo and mortality were extracted. RESULTS: Three randomized trials published between 2005 and 2015 were included in the analysis. The studies included a total of 358 patients with 185 patients undergoing laparoscopic lavage. At 12 months, the relative risk of having a re-operation was lower for laparoscopic lavage compared to colon resection in the two trials that had a 12 month follow-up. We found no significant differences in Clavien-Dindo complications classified more than level IIIB or mortality at 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: The risk for re-operations within the first 12 months after index surgery was lower for laparoscopic lavage compared to colon resection, with overall comparable morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, Hartmann’s resection was more costly than laparoscopic lavage. We therefore consider laparoscopic lavage a valid alternative to surgery with resection for perforated purulent diverticulitis

Intrusive thoughts and quality of life among men with prostate cancer before and three months after surgery.

To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked Files. This article is open access.Sudden, unwelcome and repetitive thoughts about a traumatic event--intrusive thoughts--could relate to how men assess their quality of life after prostate-cancer diagnosis. We aimed to study the prevalence of intrusive thoughts about prostate cancer and their association with quality-of-life outcomes before and after radical prostatectomy.During the first year of the LAPPRO-trial, 971 men scheduled for radical prostatectomy were prospectively included from 14 urological centers in Sweden. Of those, 833 men responded to two consecutive study-specific questionnaires before and three months after surgery (participation rate 86%). The association of intrusive thoughts with three quality-of-life outcomes, i.e. self-assessed quality of life, depressive mood and waking up with anxiety was estimated by prevalence ratios that were calculated, together with a 95% confidence interval, at the same time-point as well as over time. Fisher's exact-test was used to analyze differences between respondents and non-respondents. Wilcoxon signed-ranks and Cochran-Armitage trend tests were used for analysis of change over time. To validate new questions on intrusive thoughts, written answers to open-ended questions were read and analyzed by qualitative content analysis.Before surgery, 603 men (73%) reported negative intrusive thoughts about their cancer at some time in the past month and 593 men (59%) reported such thoughts three months after surgery. Comparing those reporting intrusive thoughts at least weekly or once a week before surgery with those who did not, the prevalence ratio (95% confidence interval), three months after surgery, for waking up in the middle of the night with anxiety was 3.9 (2.7 to 5.5), for depressed mood 1.8 (1.6 to 2.1) and for impaired self-assessed quality of life 1.3 (1.2 to 1.5).The prevalence of negative intrusive thoughts about prostate cancer at the time of surgery associates with studied quality-of-life outcomes three months later.Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN06393679.Swedish Cancer Society CAN2008/922 CAN2009/1099 CAN2010/593 Region Vastra Gotaland Sahlgrenska University Hospital VGR 27551 79291 152231 ALF 11573 138751 146201 HTA - VGR 6011 Swedish Research Council Mrs Mary von Sydow Foundation Anna and Edvin Berger foundat

Laparoscopic Lavage Is Feasible and Safe for the Treatment of Perforated Diverticulitis With Purulent Peritonitis:The First Results From the Randomized Controlled Trial DILALA

To evaluate short-term outcomes of a new treatment for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis in a randomized controlled trial. BACKGROUND: Perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis (Hinchey III) has traditionally been treated with surgery including colon resection and stoma (Hartmann procedure) with considerable postoperative morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic lavage has been suggested as a less invasive surgical treatment. METHODS: Laparoscopic lavage was compared with colon resection and stoma in a randomized controlled multicenter trial, DILALA (ISRCTN82208287). Initial diagnostic laparoscopy showing Hinchey III was followed by randomization. Clinical data was collected up to 12 weeks postoperatively. Results: Eighty-three patients were randomized, out of whom 39 patients in laparoscopic lavage and 36 patients in the Hartmann procedure groups were available for analysis. Morbidity and mortality after laparoscopic lavage did not differ when compared with the Hartmann procedure. Laparoscopic lavage resulted in shorter operating time, shorter time in the recovery unit, and shorter hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, laparoscopic lavage as treatment for patients with perforated diverticulitis Hinchey III was feasible and safe in the short-term

A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer.

Background Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer is widely used. However, robust evidence to conclude that laparoscopic surgery and open surgery have similar outcomes in rectal cancer is lacking. A trial was designed to compare 3-year rates of cancer recurrence in the pelvic or perineal area (locoregional recurrence) and survival after laparoscopic and open resection of rectal cancer. Methods In this international trial conducted in 30 hospitals, we randomly assigned patients with a solitary adenocarcinoma of the rectum within 15 cm of the anal verge, not invading adjacent tissues, and without distant metastases to undergo either laparoscopic or open surgery in a 2:1 ratio. The primary end point was locoregional recurrence 3 years after the index surgery. Secondary end points included disease-free and overall survival. Results A total of 1044 patients were included (699 in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 345 in the open-surgery group). At 3 years, the locoregional recurrence rate was 5.0% in the two groups (difference, 0 percentage points; 90% confidence interval [CI], −2.6 to 2.6). Disease-free survival rates were 74.8% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 70.8% in the open-surgery group (difference, 4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, −1.9 to 9.9). Overall survival rates were 86.7% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 83.6% in the open-surgery group (difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, −1.6 to 7.8). Conclusions Laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer was associated with rates of locoregional recurrence and disease-free and overall survival similar to those for open surgery. (Funded by Ethicon Endo-Surgery Europe and others; COLOR II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00297791.