UNASSIGNED: Gangrenous sigmoid volvulus has a significant impact on morbidity and mortality. This study was conducted to compare sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) with sigmoid resection and end colostomy (Hartmann\'s procedure) for gangrenous sigmoid volvulus.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review and meta-analysis study design was employed to summarize retrospective cohort, prospective cohort, and randomised control trial studies published from inception to march 31, 2023. Searching was performed on Medline, CINAHAL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov to locate eligible articles. Data searching, selection and screening, quality assessment of the included articles, and data extraction were done by two separate reviewers. RevMan 5.4 software with a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model and Stata version 14 were used to analyze the data. The protocol registered on PROSPERO registration website (CRD42023413367).
UNASSIGNED: Ten cohort studies and one randomised control trial with 724 patients were found; all of them were rated as being of moderate quality. The overall mortality after RPA was 15% (95%CI: 11-19%), and after Hartmann\'s procedure it was 19% (95%CI: 15-23%). Resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) for gangrenous sigmoid volvulus had slightly lower mortality rate than stoma (OR=0.98(95%CI: 0.68-1.42), p=0.07, I2=43%), which had no statistically significant difference. Resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) had a slightly higher morbidity rate than Hartmann\'s procedure (OR=1.01(95%CI: 0.66-1.55), p=0.30, I2=18%), which had no statistically significant difference.
UNASSIGNED: Sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) and Hartmann\'s procedure had no significant differences in mortality and morbidity for the treatment of gangrenous sigmoid volvulus. Choice of the intervention for gangrenous sigmoid volvulus should be individualized with consideration of different detrimental factors.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays sigmoidectomy is recommended as \"gold standard\" treatment for generalized purulent or faecal peritonitis from sigmoid perforated diverticulitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic access versus open sigmoidectomy in acute setting.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs published in PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science.
RESULTS: The search yielded four non-RCTs encompassing 436 patients undergoing either laparoscopic (181 patients, 41.51%) versus open sigmoid resection (255 patients, 58.49%). All studies reported ASA scores, but only four studies reported other severity scoring systems (Mannheim Peritonitis Index, P-POSSUM). Level of surgical expertise was reported in only one study. Laparoscopy improves slightly the rates of overall post-operative complications and post-operative hospital stay, respectively (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.80 and MD -6.53, 95% CI -16.05 to 2.99). Laparoscopy did not seem to improve the other clinical outcomes: rate of Hartmann\'s vs anastomosis, operating time, reoperation rate and postoperative 30-day mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: In this review four prospective studies were included, over 20 + year period, including overall 400 + patients. This meta-analysis revealed significant advantages associated with a laparoscopic over open approach to emergency sigmoidectomy in acute diverticulitis in terms of postoperative complication rates, although no differences were found in other outcomes. The lack of hemodynamic data and reasons for operative approach hamper interpretation of the data suggesting that patients undergoing open surgery were sicker and these results must be considered with extreme caution and this hypothesis requires confirmation by future prospective randomised controlled trials.

It is still controversial whether the optimal operation for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis is primary anastomosis (PRA) or nonrestorative resection (NRR). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate mortality and morbidity rates following emergency resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis and ostomy reversal, as well as ostomy nonreversal rates.
The Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, CINAHL and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Mortality was the primary end-point. A subgroup meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed in addition to a meta-analysis of all eligible studies. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean difference (MD) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively.
Seventeen studies, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), involving 1016 patients (392 PRA vs 624 NRR) were included. Overall, mortality was significantly lower in patients with PRA compared with patients with NRR [OR (95% CI) = 0.38 (0.24, 0.60), P < 0.0001]. Organ/space surgical site infection (SSI) [OR (95% CI) = 0.25 (0.10, 0.63), P = 0.003], reoperation [OR (95% CI) = 0.48 (0.25, 0.91), P = 0.02] and ostomy nonreversal rates [OR (95% CI) = 0.27 (0.09, 0.84), P = 0.02] were significantly decreased in PRA. In the RCTs, the mortality rate did not differ [OR (95% CI) = 0.46 (0.15, 1.38), P = 0.17]. The mean operating time for PRA was significantly longer than for NRR [MD (95% CI) = 19.96 (7.40, 32.52), P = 0.002]. Organ/space SSI [OR (95% CI) = 0.28 (0.09, 0.82), P = 0.02] was lower after PRA. Ostomy nonreversal rates were lower after PRA. The difference was not statistically significant [OR (95% CI) = 0.26 (0.06, 1.11), P = 0.07]. However, it was clinically significant [number needed to treat/harm (95% CI) = 5 (3.1, 8.9)].
This meta-analysis found that organ/space SSI rates as well as ostomy nonreversal rates were decreased in PRA at the cost of prolonging the operating time.

BACKGROUND: Over the years various therapeutic techniques for diverticulitis have been developed. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) appears to be a safe and useful treatment, and it could be an effective alternative to colonic resection in emergency surgery.
OBJECTIVE: This prospective observational study aims to assess the safety and benefits of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in perforated sigmoid diverticulitis.
METHODS: We surgically treated 70 patients urgently for complicated sigmoid diverticulitis. Thirty-two (45.7%) patients underwent resection of the sigmoid colon and creation of a colostomy (Hartmann technique); 21 (30%) patients underwent peritoneal laparoscopic lavage; 4 (5.7%) patients underwent colostomy by the Mikulicz technique; and the remaining 13 (18.6%) patients underwent resection of the sigmoid colon and creation of a colorectal anastomosis with a protective ileostomy.
RESULTS: The 66 patients examined were divided into 3 groups: 32 patients were treated with urgent surgery according to the Hartmann procedure; 13 patients were treated with resection and colorectal anastomosis; 21 patients were treated urgently with laparoscopic peritoneal lavage. We had no intraoperative complications. The overall mortality was 4.3% (3 patients). In the LPL group the morbidity rate was 33.3%.
CONCLUSIONS: Currently it cannot be said that LPL is better in terms of mortality and morbidity than colonic resection. These data may, however, be proven wrong by greater attention in the selection of patients to undergo laparoscopic peritoneal lavage.

BACKGROUND: Restoration of bowel continuity following Hartmann\'s procedure may be performed using a laparoscopic or open technique. This study is the first of its kind comparing laparoscopic with open reversal of Hartmann\'s procedure in Australasia.
METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 107 patients who underwent either a laparoscopic (n = 43) or open (n = 64) reversal of Hartmann\'s procedure between 2001 and 2012. Outcome measures were perioperative clinical outcomes and post-operative complications.
RESULTS: Patients in the two groups were comparable in age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and number of previous operations. The most common indication for the original Hartmann\'s operation in both groups was diverticular disease. Total theatre time was longer for the laparoscopic group (276.4 versus 242.0 min; P = 0.02). Three patients in the laparoscopic group required conversion to laparotomy (7%). Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann\'s procedure was associated with shorter time to passage of flatus (2.8 versus 4.0 days; P < 0.001) and faeces (4.2 versus 5.6 days; P = 0.002), and shorter overall length of hospital stay (6.7 versus 10.8 days; P < 0.001). There were fewer patients in the laparoscopic group who had post-operative complications (14% versus 31%; P = 0.04), including fewer cases of post-operative ileus (2% versus 17%; P = 0.02). There were no cases of anastomotic leak or in-hospital mortality in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann\'s procedure is a safe and feasible alternative to open Hartmann\'s reversal and may be associated with significantly faster recovery time and fewer post-operative complications.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal endometriosis is often an infrequently considered diagnosis in female of childbearing age by general surgeon. There is a delay in diagnosis because of constellation of symptoms and lack of specific diagnostic modalities. Patients suffer from intestinal endometriosis for many years before they are diagnosed. Often, such patients are labelled with irritable bowel syndrome. Intestinal endometriosis has a diagnostic time delay of 8-11 years due to its non-specific clinical features and multi-system involvement.
METHODS: Our patient was a 32 years old Caucasian female who was referred to us with features of intestinal obstruction. Despite repeated clinical assessments and use of different diagnostic modalities the diagnosis was still inconclusive even after 21 days of her first presentation to primary care physician. She had an exploratory laparotomy, sigmoid colectomy, and Hartmann\'s procedure with a temporary colostomy with us. Histopathology confirmed endometriosis and also showed melanosis coli. She was referred to the gynaecological team for review and follow up.
CONCLUSIONS: Intestinal endometriosis should be considered as a differential diagnosis in female patients of childbearing age group presenting with non-specific gastrointestinal signs and symptoms. Our patient manifested intestinal endometriosis and melanosis coli on histopathology suggesting symptoms of long duration.
CONCLUSIONS: Bowel endometriosis is a less considered and often ignored differential diagnosis in acute and chronic abdomen. This condition has considerable effect on patient\'s health both physically and psychologically.