The management of patients with colonic diverticular perforation is still evolving. Initial lavage with or without simple suture and drainage was suggested in the late 19th century, replaced progressively by the three-stage Mayo Clinic or the two-stage Mickulicz procedures. Fears of inadequate source control prompted the implementation of the resection of the affected segment of colon with formation of a colostomy (Hartman procedure) in the 1970’s. Ensuing development of the treatment strategies was driven by the recognition of the high morbidity and mortality and low reversal rates associated with the Hartman procedure. This led to the wider use of resection and primary anastomosis during the 1990’s. The technique of lavage and drainage regained popularity during the 1990’s. This procedure can also be performed laparoscopically with the advantage of faster recovery and shorter hospital stay. This strategy allows resectional surgery to be postponed or avoided altogether in many patients; and higher rates of primary resection and anastomosis can be achieved avoiding the need for a stoma. The three recent randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic peritoneal lavage alone to resectional surgery reported inconsistent outcomes. The aim of this review is to review the historical evolution and future reflections of surgical treatment modalities for diffuse purulent and feculent peritonitis. In this review we classified the various surgical strategies according to Krukowski et al. and Vermeulen et al. and reviewed the literature related to surgical treatment separately for each period.

Introduction: Damage control surgery (DCS) is the classic approach to manage severe trauma and has recently also been considered an appropriate approach to the treatment of critically ill patients with severe intra-abdominal sepsis. The purpose of the present review is to evaluate the outcomes following DCS for Hinchey II–IV complicated acute diverticulitis (CAD). Methods: A comprehensive systematic search was undertaken to identify all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies, irrespectively of their size, publication status, and language. Adults who have undergone DCS for CAD Hinchey II, III, or IV were included in this review. DCS is compared with the immediate and definitive surgical treatment in the form of HP, colonic resection, and primary anastomosis (RPA) with or without covering stoma or laparoscopic lavage. We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge. The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was published on Prospero (CRD42020144953). Results: Nine studies with 318 patients, undergoing DCS, were included. The presence of septic shock at the presentation in the emergency department was heterogeneous, and the weighted mean rate of septic shock across the studies was shown to be 35.1% [95% CI 8.4 to 78.6%]. The majority of the patients had Hinchey III (68.3%) disease. The remainder had either Hinchey IV (28.9%) or Hinchey II (2.8%). Phase I is similarly described in most of the studies as lavage, limited resection with closed blind colonic ends. In a few studies, resection and anastomosis (9.1%) or suture of the perforation site (0.9%) were performed in phase I of DCS. In those patients who underwent DCS, the most common method of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) was the negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (97.8%). The RPA was performed in 62.1% [95% CI 40.8 to 83.3%] and the 22.7% [95% CI 15.1 to 30.3%]: 12.8% during phase I and 87.2% during phase III. A covering ileostomy was performed in 6.9% [95% CI 1.5 to 12.2%]. In patients with RPA, the overall leak was 7.3% [95% CI 4.3 to 10.4%] and the major anastomotic leaks were 4.7% [95% CI 2.0 to 7.4%]; the rate of postoperative mortality was estimated to be 9.2% [95% CI 6.0 to 12.4%]. Conclusions: The present meta-analysis revealed an approximately 62.1% weighted rate of achieving GI continuity with the DCS approach to generalized peritonitis in Hinchey III and IV with major leaks of 4.7% and overall mortality of 9.2%. Despite the promising results, we are aware of the limitations related to the significant heterogeneity of inclusion criteria. Importantly, the low rate of reported septic shock may point toward selection bias. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical advantages and cost-effectiveness of the DCS approach.

Background: The management of high-surgical-risk patients with moderate to severe acute cholecystitis is challenging in clinical practice. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is considered the gold standard for patients who do not respond to conservative treatment. However, for those unfit for surgery due to high risk, alternative treatment options, such as percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC), are available. There are no clear guidelines regarding the management of patients following PC. The primary aim of this study was to propose indications for PC in high-surgical-risk patients with acute cholecystitis and to establish management strategies for gallbladder drainage, either as a bridge to surgery or as a definitive treatment, according to available literature. Materials and methods: After a targeted literature review, International and Italian experts in the field from the Italian Society of Research in Surgery (SIRC) and the Italian Society of Emergency Surgery and Trauma (SICUT) were consulted to provide their evidence-based opinions on the topic. Statements were proposed during subsequent rounds using the Delphi methodology. Ten statements were provided, and the final agreement is presented in this study. Results: Patients with moderate acute cholecystitis, a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥ 6, and American Society of Anesthesiologists-Performance Status (ASA-PS) ≥ 3 who fail conservative treatment should undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the first-line approach. For those with severe acute cholecystitis at high-surgical risk, percutaneous cholecystostomy is recommended to relieve symptoms within 24–48 hours. Once the infection is controlled, we should assess which patients may be candidates for interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy. For patients selected for surgery, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended at least six weeks after PC placement. In patients not suitable for surgery, such as those with CCI ≥ 6 and ASA-PS ≥ 4, percutaneous cholecystostomy should remain in place for at least three weeks, after which, following radiographic confirmation of biliary tree patency, the tube may be removed. Conclusions: This consensus, developed through a multidisciplinary collaboration of interventional radiologists, gastroenterologists, and surgeons, provides a clear and practical guide for managing high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis.