BACKGROUND: Diverticulitis is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases in western population. Colonic resection is recommended by international guidelines as a routinely used technique for purulent diverticulitis. Laparoscopic lavage was introduced as a non-resection alternative. The studies available so far have shown contradictory results. This meta-analysis aims to compare laparoscopic lavage versus colonic resection in patients with Hinchey Ⅲ-Ⅳ diverticulitis.
METHODS: We did a systematic review of articles published before March 20, 2019, with no language restriction by searching PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE databases, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases. We included all RCTs and cohort studies comparing outcomes between patients with Hinchey Ⅲ-Ⅳ diverticulitis undergoing laparoscopic lavage versus colonic resection. Important outcomes were mortality, complications, length of stay, readmission and reoperation rates. We combined data to assess the outcomes using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model.
RESULTS: A total of 569 patients with diverticulitis of which more than 80% were Hinchey Ⅲ were enrolled from 3 RCTs and 5 cohort studies. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with shorter operative time (WMD -78.9, 95%CI -100.58 to -57.11, P < 0.0001) and total postoperative hospital stay (WMD -7.62, 95%CI -11.60 to -3.63, P = 0.0002) but a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess (OR 2.69, 95%CI 1.39 to 5.21, P = 0.0032) and secondary peritonitis (OR 5.30, 95%CI 1.91 to 14.73, P = 0.0014).
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic lavage for patients with Hinchey Ⅲ to Ⅳ diverticulitis does provide similar mortality, shorter operative time and hospital stay. However, the evidence so far suggests that it might be inadequate for sepsis control and may result in more unplanned reoperations. Further studies are needed to standardize the formal indication for laparoscopic lavage.

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates current evidence on the therapeutic role of laparoscopic lavage in the management of diverticular peritonitis. A systematic review of the literature was performed on PubMed until June 2016, according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. All randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic lavage with surgical resection, irrespective of anastomosis or stoma formation, were analysed. After assessment of titles and full text, 3 randomised trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall the quality of evidence was low because of serious concerns regarding the risk of bias and imprecision. In the laparoscopic lavage group, there was a statistically significant higher rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.34-4.83), a lower rate of postoperative wound infection (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.51), and a shorter length of postoperative hospital stay during index admission (WMD = -2.03, 95% CI -2.59 to -1.47). There were no statistically significant differences in terms of postoperative mortality at index admission or within 30 days from intervention in all Hinchey stages and in Hinchey stage III, postoperative mortality at 12 months, surgical reintervention at index admission or within 30-90 days from index intervention, stoma rate at 12 months, or adverse events within 90 days of any Clavien-Dindo grade. The surgical reintervention rate at 12 months from index intervention was significantly lower in the laparoscopic lavage group (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.86), but these data included emergency reintervention and planned intervention (stoma reversal). This systematic review and meta-analysis did not demonstrate any significant difference between laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and traditional surgical resection in patients with peritonitis from perforated diverticular disease, in terms of postoperative mortality and early reoperation rate. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with a lower rate of stoma formation. However, the finding of a significantly higher rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess in patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage compared to those who underwent surgical resection is of concern. Since the aim of surgery in patients with peritonitis is to treat the sepsis, if one technique is associated with more postoperative abscesses, then the technique is ineffective. Even so, laparoscopic lavage does not appear fundamentally inferior to traditional surgical resection and this technique may achieve reasonable outcomes with minimal invasiveness.