No abstract

Background: The incidence of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis (ACD) is increasing in the Western world. To improve the quality of patient care, a guideline for diagnosis and treatment of diverticulitis is needed. Methods: A multidisciplinary working group, representing experts of relevant specialties, was involved in the guideline development. A systematic literature search was conducted to collect scientific evidence on epidemiology, classification, diagnostics and treatment of diverticulitis. Literature was assessed using the classification system according to an evidence-based guideline development method, and levels of evidence of the conclusions were assigned to each topic. Final recommendations were given, taking into account the level of evidence of the conclusions and other relevant considerations such as patient preferences, costs and availability of facilities. Results: The natural history of diverticulitis is usually mild and treatment is mostly conservative. Although younger patients have a higher risk of recurrent disease, a higher risk of complications compared to older patients was not found. In general, the clinical diagnosis of ACD is not accurate enough and therefore imaging is indicated. The triad of pain in the lower left abdomen on physical examination, the absence of vomiting and a C-reactive protein >50 mg/l has a high predictive value to diagnose ACD. If this triad is present and there are no signs of complicated disease, patients may be withheld from further imaging. If imaging is indicated, conditional computed tomography, only after a negative or inconclusive ultrasound, gives the best results. There is no indication for routine endoscopic examination after an episode of diverticulitis. There is no evidence for the routine administration of antibiotics in patients with clinically mild uncomplicated diverticulitis. Treatment of pericolic or pelvic abscesses can initially be treated with antibiotic therapy or combined with percutaneous drainage. If this treatment fails, surgical drainage is required. Patients with a perforated ACD resulting in peritonitis should undergo an emergency operation. There is an ongoing debate about the optimal surgical strategy. Conclusion: Scientific evidence is scarce for some aspects of ACD treatment (e.g. natural history of ACD, ACD in special patient groups, prevention of ACD, treatment of uncomplicated ACD and medical treatment of recurrent ACD), leading to treatment being guided by the surgeon's personal preference. Other aspects of the management of patients with ACD have been more thoroughly researched (e.g. imaging techniques, treatment of complicated ACD and elective surgery of ACD). This guideline of the diagnostics and treatment of ACD can be used as a reference for clinicians who treat patients with ACD.

This study showed that the clinical diagnosis of diverticulitis is difficult to make but can be improved using a clinical scoring system. In case of a high chance of ALCD based on the nomogram, additional imaging may not be needed.

Background Although self‐expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left‐sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short‐term results, it is used infrequently owing to uncertainty about its oncological safety. This population study compared long‐term oncological outcomes between emergency resection and SEMS placement as BTS. Methods Through a national collaborative research project, long‐term outcome data were collected for all patients who underwent resection for left‐sided obstructing colonic cancer between 2009 and 2016 in 75 Dutch hospitals. Patients were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit database. SEMS as BTS was compared with emergency resection in the curative setting after 1 : 2 propensity score matching. Results Some 222 patients who had a stent placed were matched to 444 who underwent emergency resection. The overall SEMS‐related perforation rate was 7·7 per cent (17 of 222). Three‐year locoregional recurrence rates after SEMS insertion and emergency resection were 11·4 and 13·6 per cent (P = 0·457), disease‐free survival rates were 58·8 and 52·6 per cent (P = 0·175), and overall survival rates were 74·0 and 68·3 per cent (P = 0·231), respectively. SEMS placement resulted in significantly fewer permanent stomas (23·9 versus 45·3 per cent; P < 0·001), especially in elderly patients (29·0 versus 57·9 per cent; P < 0·001). For patients in the SEMS group with or without perforation, 3‐year locoregional recurrence rates were 18 and 11·0 per cent (P = 0·432), disease‐free survival rates were 49 and 59·6 per cent (P = 0·717), and overall survival rates 61 and 75·1 per cent (P = 0·529), respectively. Conclusion Overall, SEMS as BTS seems an oncologically safe alternative to emergency resection with fewer permanent stomas. Nevertheless, the risk of SEMS‐related perforation, as well as permanent stoma, might influence shared decision‐making for individual patients.

In two-thirds of the patients, the diagnosis of ACD can be made based on clinical evaluation alone. In one-third of the patients, additional imaging is a necessity to establish the diagnosis. US and CT are comparable in diagnosing diverticulitis and superior to other modalities. CT has the advantage of higher specificity and the ability to identify alternative diagnoses. The role of MRI is not yet clear in diagnosing ACD. Contrast enema is considered an obsolete imaging technique to diagnose ACD based on lower sensitivity and specificity than US and CT. A step-up approach with CT performed after an inconclusive or negative US, seems a logical and safe approach for patients suspected of ACD.