Williams syndrome was first reported by Williams and Beuren in 1961-1962. It is a genetic disorder that is caused by a sporadic microdeletion of chromosome 7, which includes the elastin gene. The development of gastrointestinal pathology, such as diverticular disease, is associated with the deletion of this specific gene. Almost one-third of patients with Williams syndrome develop diverticular disease. The first episode of diverticulitis appears in 8% of patients, diagnosed with Williams syndrome, before the age of 40. According to the literature, in the case of complicated diverticulitis (Hinchey III) in patients with WS, the treatment is mainly surgical resection of sigmoid and colostomy (Hartmann procedure) or anastomosis. We present an interesting case with a 31-year-old male, with Williams syndrome and Hinchey III diverticulitis, who underwent laparoscopic lavage and primary closure of the perforation. To our knowledge, this is the first case in literature that a patient with Williams syndrome and complicated diverticulitis (Hinchey III) was treated this way and the results until now are encouraging.

UNASSIGNED: To compare long-term outcomes after laparoscopic lavage with resection surgery for perforated diverticulitis, Hinchey grade III as practiced in Sweden for 3 years.
UNASSIGNED: Laparoscopic lavage has been studied in 3 randomized controlled trials. Long-term results indicate that additional surgery and a remaining stoma are less common after lavage compared with resection, but data from routine care and larger cohorts are needed to get a more complete picture.
UNASSIGNED: LapLav is a national cohort study with nearly complete coverage of all patients operated in Sweden between 2016 and 2018. The cohort was retrieved from the national patient register by a definition based on the Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10 code plus the surgical procedural code. All medical records have been reviewed and data retrieved in addition to registry data. Propensity score with inverse probability weighting was used to balance the 2 groups, that is, laparoscopic lavage vs resection surgery.
UNASSIGNED: Before the propensity score was applied, the cohort consisted of 499 patients. Additional surgery was more common in the resection group [odds ratio, 0.714; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.529-0.962; P = 0.0271]. Mortality did not differ between the groups (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI = 0.69-2.07; P = 0.516). In the lavage group, 27% of patients went on to have resection surgery.
UNASSIGNED: In Swedish routine care, laparoscopic lavage was feasible and safe for the surgical treatment of perforated diverticulitis, Hinchey grade III. Our results indicate that laparoscopic lavage can be used as a first-choice treatment.

The treatment of diverticulitis is experiencing a shift in management due to a number of large scale clinical trials. For instance, clinicians are beginning to recognize that avoidance of antibiotics in uncomplicated diverticulitis is not associated with worse outcomes. Additionally, while the decision to proceed with elective surgical resection for recurrent uncomplicated disease is less conclusive and favors a patient-centric approach, complicated disease with a large abscess denotes more aggressive disease and would likely benefit from elective surgical resection. Lastly, in patient with acutely perforated diverticulitis who require urgent surgical intervention, laparoscopic lavage is generally not recommended due to high re-intervention rates and the preferred surgical procedure is primary anastomosis with or without diversion due to high morbidity and low rates of Hartmann reversal.

The management of perforated non-faeculent diverticulitis has traditionally involved performing a colonic resection (CR). Laparoscopic lavage (LL) has emerged as a less invasive alternative in recent years. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the role of LL in the surgical treatment of perforated non-faeculent diverticulitis. To that end, we conducted a search on Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases for comparative studies in the English language published till June 2021 [PROSPERO (CRD42021269410)]. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) and the methodological index for non-randomised studies (MINORS). Data were analysed using Cochrane RevMan. Pooled odds ratio (POR) and cumulative weighted ratios (CWR) were calculated. A total of 13 studies involving 1061 patients were found eligible, including seven studies based on three randomised control trials (RCTs). LL was associated with a reduced risk of wound infection, stoma formation, and need for further surgery by 77% [POR: 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07-0.74], 83% (POR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.05-0.56), and 53% (POR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.23-0.97) respectively. Duration of surgery and hospitalisation was reduced by 54% and 43% respectively. However, LL was associated with higher rates of unplanned reoperations (POR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.22-3.42), recurrence (POR: 9.47, 95% CI: 3.24-27.67), and peritonitis (POR: 8.92, 95% CI: 2.71-29.33). No differences in mortality or readmission rates were observed. LL in Hinchey III diverticulitis lowers the incidence of stoma formation and overall reoperations without an increase in mortality but at the cost of higher recurrence rates and peritonitis. A limitation of this study was the inclusion of non-RCTs. An elective resection should be considered after LL. Guidelines for surgical techniques in LL need to be standardised.

This study aimed to compare laparoscopic lavage and sigmoidectomy as treatment for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis during a 36 month follow-up of the LOLA trial.
Within the LOLA arm of the international, multicentre LADIES trial, patients with perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis were randomised between laparoscopic lavage and sigmoidectomy. Outcomes were collected up to 36 months. The primary outcome of the present study was cumulative morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included reoperations (including stoma reversals), stoma rates, and sigmoidectomy rates in the lavage group.
Long-term follow-up was recorded in 77 of the 88 originally included patients, 39 were randomised to sigmoidectomy (51%) and 38 to laparoscopic lavage (49%). After 36 months, overall cumulative morbidity (sigmoidectomy 28/39 (72%) versus lavage 32/38 (84%), p = 0·272) and mortality (sigmoidectomy 7/39 (18%) versus lavage 6/38 (16%), p = 1·000) did not differ. The number of patients who underwent a reoperation was significantly lower for lavage compared to sigmoidectomy (sigmoidectomy 27/39 (69%) versus lavage 17/38 (45%), p = 0·039). After 36 months, patients alive with stoma in situ was lower in the lavage group (proportion calculated from the Kaplan-Meier life table, sigmoidectomy 17% vs lavage 11%, log-rank p = 0·0268). Eventually, 17 of 38 (45%) patients allocated to lavage underwent sigmoidectomy.
Long-term outcomes showed that laparoscopic lavage was associated with less patients who underwent reoperations and lower stoma rates in patients alive after 36 months compared to sigmoidectomy. No differences were found in terms of cumulative morbidity or mortality. Patient selection should be improved to reduce risk for short-term complications after which lavage could still be a valuable treatment option.

Laparoscopic lavage is seen as an acceptable alternative to colonic resection in selected patients with acute diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis. There is no consensus on what surgical technique should be used when performing this procedure. This case series describes the disease course of 3 patients with acute diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis treated with laparoscopic lavage and direct suturing of a colonic perforation. All patients (38- and 71-year-old males and a 44-year-old female) were seen in the emergency department due to acute lower abdominal pain. Clinical examination and laboratory and imaging studies were suggestive of perforated diverticular disease. Laparoscopic lavage with placement of drain(s) and direct suturing of a colonic perforation was performed. Postoperative treatment with intravenous antibiotics was continued for a variable term. Postoperative courses were uneventful. Patients were discharged on postoperative days 5, 5, and 7. At almost 1-year follow-up, all patients are in good clinical condition and have not had a recurrent episode of diverticulitis. Therefore, this case series shows promising results of laparoscopic lavage with direct suturing of colonic perforation in patients with diverticulitis with perforation and purulent peritonitis.

Diverticular disease and diverticulitis are the most common non-cancerous pathology of the colon. It has traditionally been considered a disease of the elderly and associated with cultural and dietary habits. There has been a growing evolution in our understanding and the treatment guidelines for this disease. To provide an updated review of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, classification and highlight changes in the medical and surgical management of diverticulitis. Diverticulitis is increasingly being seen in young patients (< 50 years). Genetic contributions to diverticulitis may be larger than previously thought. Potential similarities and overlap with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome exist. Computed tomography imaging represents the standard to classify the severity of diverticulitis. Modifications to the traditional Hinchey classification might serve to better delineate mild and intermediate forms as well as better classify chronic presentations of diverticulitis. Non-operative management is primarily based on antibiotics and supportive measures, but antibiotics may be omitted in mild cases. Interval colonoscopy remains advisable after an acute attack, particularly after a complicated form. Acute surgery is needed for the most severe as well as refractory cases, whereas elective resections are individualized and should be considered for chronic, smoldering, or recurrent forms and respective complications (stricture, fistula, etc.) and for patients with factors highly predictive of recurrent attacks. Diverticulitis is no longer a disease of the elderly. Our evolving understanding of diverticulitis as a clinical entity has led into a more nuanced approach in both the medical and surgical management of this common disease. Non-surgical management remains the appropriate treatment for greater than 70% of patients. In individuals with non-relenting, persistent, or recurrent symptoms and those with complicated disease and sequelae, a segmental colectomy remains the most effective surgical treatment in the acute, chronic, or elective-prophylactic setting.

BACKGROUND: The best treatment for perforated colonic diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis is still under debate. Concurrent strategies are resection with primary anastomosis (PRA) with or without diverting ileostomy (DI), Hartmann\'s procedure (HP), laparoscopic lavage (LL) and damage control surgery (DCS). This review intends to systematically analyze the current literature on DCS.
METHODS: DCS consists of two stages. Emergency surgery: limited resection of the diseased colon, oral and aboral closure, lavage, vacuum-assisted abdominal closure. Second look surgery after 24-48 h: definite reconstruction with colorectal anastomosis (-/ + DI) or HP after adequate resuscitation. The review was conducted in accordance to the PRISMA-P Statement. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE were searched using the following term: (Damage control surgery) AND (Diverticulitis OR Diverticulum OR Peritonitis).
RESULTS: Eight retrospective studies including 256 patients met the inclusion criteria. No randomized trial was available. 67% of the included patients had purulent, 30% feculent peritonitis. In 3% Hinchey stage II diverticulitis was found. In 49% the Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI) was greater than 26. Colorectal anastomosis was constructed during the course of the second surgery in 73%. In 15% of the latter DI was applied. The remaining 27% received HP. Postoperative mortality was 9%, morbidity 31% respectively. The anastomotic leak rate was 13%. 55% of patients were discharged without a stoma.
CONCLUSIONS: DCS is a safe technique for the treatment of acute perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis, allowing a high rate of colorectal anastomosis and stoma-free hospital discharge in more than half of the patients.

The medical and surgical management of uncomplicated diverticulitis has changed over the last several years. Although immunocompetent patients or those without comorbidities can be treated with antibiotics as an outpatient, the efficacy of high-fiber intake or drugs such as mesalamine or rifaximin is not yet clearly established in the treatment of acute episodes and in the prevention of recurrences. On the other hand, the choice between antibiotic treatment and percutaneous drainage is not always obvious in diverticulitis complicated by abscess formation, especially for larger abscesses; although the results of studies comparing the two approaches remain controversial, surgery must be pursued for abscesses > 8 cm. For emergency surgery, the debate is still ongoing regarding laparoscopic lavage and surgical resection followed by primary anastomosis, since for both approaches the published reports are not in agreement regarding possible benefits. Therefore, these approaches are recommended only for selected patients under the care of experienced surgeons. Also, the contribution of elective surgery toward the overall approach has been revised; currently, it is reserved primarily for patients with a high risk of recurrence and whenever more conservative treatments were not effective.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) is feasible in selected patients with pelvic abscess and generalized purulent peritonitis caused by acute diverticulitis. We aimed to compare LPL and laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (LS) in complicated acute diverticulitis.
METHODS: This prospective, observational, multicenter study included patients with a pelvic abscess not amenable to conservative management and patients with Hinchey III acute diverticulitis, from 2015 to 2018. Sixty-six patients were enrolled: 28 (42%) underwent LPL and 38 (58%) underwent LS. In LS, patients had a primary anastomosis, with or without ileostomy, or an end colostomy (HA). Major outcomes were mortality, morbidity, failure of source control, reoperation, length of stay, and diverticulitis recurrence.
RESULTS: Patient demographics were similar in the two groups. In LPL, ASA score > 2 and Mannheim Peritonitis Index were significantly higher (p = 0.05 and 0.004). In LS, 24 patients (63%) had a PA and 14 (37%) an HA. No death was recorded. Overall, morbidity was 33% in LPL and 18% in LS (p = 0.169). However, failure to achieve source control of the peritoneal infection and the need to return to the operating room were more frequent in LPL (p = 0.002 and p = 0.006). Mean postoperative length of stay was comparable (p = 0.08). Diverticular recurrence was significantly higher in LPL (p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: LPL is related to a higher reoperation rate, more frequent postoperative ongoing sepsis, and higher recurrence rates. Therefore, laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis carries a high risk of failure in daily practice.