4.1 Article

Laparoscopic Resection of Chronic Sigmoid Diverticulitis with Fistula

Journal

Publisher

SOC LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS
DOI: 10.4293/108680813X13693422520512

Keywords

Laparoscopic resection; Sigmoid diverticulitis; Colonic fistula

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Objectives: A growing number of operations for sigmoid diverticulitis are being done laparoscopically. There is a paucity of data on the outcome of laparoscopy for sigmoid diverticulitis complicated by colonic fistula. The aim of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic resection of sigmoid diverticulitis with and without colonic fistula. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent laparoscopic resection of sigmoid diverticulitis complicated by fistula at a single tertiary care institution over a 7-year period. Comparison was made with a group of patients who underwent resection for diverticulitis without fistula during the same study period. Results: Forty-two patients were analyzed (group 1: diverticular fistula, group 2: no fistula). The median age was similar (49 vs. 50 years, P = .68). A chronic abscess was present in 24% of patients in group 1 and 10% in group 2 (P = .40). Fistula types were colovesical (71%), colovaginal (19%), and colocutaneous (10%). Operation types were sigmoidectomy (57% vs. 81%) and anterior resection (43% vs. 19%) in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = .18). Ureteral catheters were used more frequently in group 1 (67% vs. 33% [P = .06]). No difference was noted in operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, length of stay, overall complications, wound infection rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and mortality. All patients healed without fistula recurrence. Conclusions: Patients with sigmoid diverticulitis with fistula can be successfully treated with laparoscopic excision, with similar outcomes for patients without fistula.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available