BackgroundRecently, excellent results are reported on laparoscopic lavage in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis as an alternative for sigmoidectomy and ostomy.The objective of this study is to determine whether LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage is a safe and effective treatment for patients with purulent peritonitis (LOLA-arm) and to determine the optimal resectional strategy in patients with a purulent or faecal peritonitis (DIVA-arm: perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoidresection with or without Anastomosis).Methods/DesignIn this multicentre randomised trial all patients with perforated diverticulitis are included. Upon laparoscopy, patients with purulent peritonitis are treated with laparoscopic lavage and drainage, Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis in a ratio of 2:1:1 (LOLA-arm). Patients with faecal peritonitis will be randomised 1:1 between Hartmann's procedure and resection with primary anastomosis (DIVA-arm). The primary combined endpoint of the LOLA-arm is major morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 132:66:66 patients will be able to detect a difference in the primary endpoint from 25% in resectional groups compared to 10% in the laparoscopic lavage group (two sided alpha = 5%, power = 90%). Endpoint of the DIVA-arm is stoma free survival one year after initial surgery. In this arm 212 patients are needed to significantly demonstrate a difference of 30% (log rank test two sided alpha = 5% and power = 90%) in favour of the patients with resection with primary anastomosis. Secondary endpoints for both arms are the number of days alive and outside the hospital, health related quality of life, health care utilisation and associated costs.DiscussionThe Ladies trial is a nationwide multicentre randomised trial on perforated diverticulitis that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic lavage and drainage for purulent generalised peritonitis and on the optimal resectional strategy for both purulent and faecal generalised peritonitis.Trial registrationNederlands Trial Register NTR2037

PurposeBoth “high tie” (HT) and “low tie” (LT) are well-known strategies in rectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare colonic perfusion after HT to colonic perfusion after LT.MethodsPatients undergoing rectal resection for malignancy were included. Colonic perfusion was measured with laser Doppler flowmetry, immediately after laparotomy on the antimesenterial side of the colon segment that was to become the afferent loop (measurement A). This measurement was repeated after rectal resection (measurement B). The blood flow ratios (B/A) were compared between the HT group and the LT group.ResultsBlood flow was measured in 33 patients, 16 undergoing HT and 17 undergoing LT. Colonic blood flow slightly decreased in the HT group whereas the flow increased in the LT group. The blood flow ratio was significantly higher in the LT group (1.48 vs. 0.91; p = 0.04), independent of the blood pressure.ConclusionThis study shows the blood flow ratio to be higher in the LT group. This suggests that anastomoses may benefit from better perfusion when LT is performed.

Background: Mortality and morbidity rates of acute perforated diverticulitis remain high. The ideal treatment is still controversial. The object of this study was to compare patients with perforated diverticulitis treated either by resection with primary anastomosis (PA) or Hartmann’s procedure (HP). Methods: A multicenter study was carried out on 200 consecutive patients with acute perforated diverticulitis who were presented in the surgical units of four affiliated teaching hospitals in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, between 1995 and 2005. Mortality and morbidity were compared in relation to type of surgery, ASA classification, age, gender, Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), Hinchey score, surgeon’s experience, and the time of operation. Results: There was a tendency for more severely affected patients (Hinchey, MPI, ASA and age) to undergo HP. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant difference in mortality between HP and PA. After HP, more patients needed one or more reinterventions to treat postoperative complications compared to PA. Besides, HP resulted in a longer total hospital and intensive care unit stay. Specialist colorectal surgeons performed significantly more frequently a PA instead of a HP and had fewer postoperative complications than general surgeons. The time of operation did not influence the choice of surgical procedure. Conclusion: Selected patients with perforated diverticulitis can be managed well by PA, as it does not seem to be inferior to HP in terms of severe postoperative complications that need surgical or radiological reintervention and mortality. This decision should be made while taking into account the patient’s concomitant diseases, response on preoperative resuscitation and the availability of a surgeon experienced in colorectal surgery.

No abstract

BackgroundLaparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is associated with improved recovery and similar cancer outcomes at 3 and 5 years in comparison with open surgery. However, long-term survival rates have rarely been reported. Here, we present survival and recurrence rates of the Dutch patients included in the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial at 10-year follow-up.MethodsBetween March 1997 and March 2003, patients with non-metastatic colon cancer were recruited by 29 hospitals in eight countries and randomised to either laparoscopic or open surgery. Main inclusion criterion for the COLOR trial was solitary adenocarcinoma of the left or right colon. The primary outcome was disease-free survival at 3 years, and secondary outcomes included overall survival and recurrence. The 10-year follow-up data of all Dutch patients were collected. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00387842).ResultsIn total, 1248 patients were randomised, of which 329 were Dutch. Fifty-eight Dutch patients were excluded and 15 were lost to follow-up, leaving 256 patients for 10-year analysis. Median follow-up was 112 months. Disease-free survival rates were 45.2 % in the laparoscopic group and 43.2 % in the open group (difference 2.0 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) −10.3 to 14.3; p = 0.96). Overall survival rates were 48.4 and 46.7 %, respectively (difference 1.7 %; 95 % CI −10.6 to 14.0; p = 0.83). Stage-specific analysis revealed similar survival rates for both groups. Sixty-two patients were diagnosed with recurrent disease, accounting for 29.4 % in the laparoscopic group and 28.2 % in the open group (difference 1.2 %; 95 % CI −11.1 to 13.5; p = 0.73). Seven patients had port- or wound-site recurrences (laparoscopic n = 3 vs. open n = 4).ConclusionsLaparoscopic surgery for non-metastatic colon cancer is associated with similar rates of disease-free survival, overall survival and recurrences as open surgery at 10-year follow-up.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00464-016-5270-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.