Aim The goal of this European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) guideline project is to give an overview of the existing evidence on the management of diverticular disease, primarily as a guidance to surgeons. Methods The guideline was developed during several working phases including three voting rounds and one consensus meeting. The two project leads (JKS and EA) appointed by the ESCP guideline committee together with one member of the guideline committee (WB) agreed on the methodology, decided on six themes for working groups (WGs) and drafted a list of research questions. Senior WG members, mostly colorectal surgeons within the ESCP, were invited based on publication records and geographical aspects. Other specialties were included in the WGs where relevant. In addition, one trainee or PhD fellow was invited in each WG. All six WGs revised the research questions if necessary, did a literature search, created evidence tables where feasible, and drafted supporting text to each research question and statement. The text and statement proposals from each WG were arranged as one document by the first and last authors before online voting by all authors in two rounds. For the second voting ESCP national representatives were also invited. More than 90% agreement was considered a consensus. The final phrasing of the statements with < 90% agreement was discussed in a consensus meeting at the ESCP annual meeting in Vienna in September 2019. Thereafter, the first and the last author drafted the final text of the guideline and circulated it for final approval and for a third and final online voting of rephrased statements. Results This guideline contains 38 evidence based consensus statements on the management of diverticular disease. Conclusion This international, multidisciplinary guideline provides an up to date summary of the current knowledge of the management of diverticular disease as a guidance for clinicians and patients.

BackgroundThe traditional fear that every case of acute appendicitis will eventually perforate has led to the generally accepted emergency appendicectomy with minimized delay. However, emergency and thereby sometimes night‐time surgery is associated with several drawbacks, whereas the consequences of surgery after limited delay are unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess in‐hospital delay before surgery as risk factor for complicated appendicitis and postoperative morbidity in patients with acute appendicitis.MethodsPubMed and EMBASE were searched from 1990 to 2016 for studies including patients who underwent appendicectomy for acute appendicitis, reported in two or more predefined time intervals. The primary outcome measure was complicated appendicitis after surgery (perforated or gangrenous appendicitis); other outcomes were postoperative surgical‐site infection and morbidity. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were pooled using forest plots if possible. Unadjusted data were pooled using generalized linear mixed models.ResultsForty‐five studies with 152 314 patients were included. Pooled adjusted ORs revealed no significantly higher risk for complicated appendicitis when appendicectomy was delayed for 7–12 or 13–24 h (OR 1·07, 95 per cent c.i. 0·98 to 1·17, and OR 1·09, 0·95 to 1·24, respectively). Meta‐analysis of unadjusted data supported these findings by yielding no increased risk for complicated appendicitis or postoperative complications with a delay of 24–48 h.ConclusionThis meta‐analysis demonstrates that delaying appendicectomy for presumed uncomplicated appendicitis for up to 24 h after admission does not appear to be a risk factor for complicated appendicitis, postoperative surgical‐site infection or morbidity. Delaying appendicectomy for up to 24 h may be an acceptable alternative for patients with no preoperative signs of complicated appendicitis.

Omitting antibiotics in the treatment of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis did not result in more complicated diverticulitis, recurrent diverticulitis or sigmoid resections at long-term follow up. As the DIABOLO trial was not powered for these secondary outcome measures, some uncertainty remains whether (small) non-significant differences could be true associations.

Background Routine colonoscopy was traditionally recommended after acute diverticulitis to exclude coexistent malignancy. Improved CT imaging may make routine colonoscopy less required over time but most guidelines still recommend it. The aim of this review was to assess the role of colonoscopy in patients with CT‐proven acute diverticulitis. Methods PubMed and Embase were searched for studies reporting the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) or colorectal carcinoma in patients who underwent colonoscopy within 1 year after CT‐proven left‐sided acute diverticulitis. The prevalence was pooled using a random‐effects model and, if possible, compared with that among asymptomatic controls. Results Seventeen studies with 3296 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of ACN was 6·9 (95 per cent c.i. 5·0 to 9·4) per cent and that of colorectal carcinoma was 2·1 (1·5 to 3·1) per cent. Only two studies reported a comparison with asymptomatic controls, showing comparable risks (risk ratio 1·80, 95 per cent c.i. 0·66 to 4·96). In subgroup analysis of patients with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis, the prevalence of colorectal carcinoma was only 0·5 (0·2 to 1·2) per cent. Conclusion Routine colonoscopy may be omitted in patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis if CT imaging is otherwise clear. Patients with complicated disease or ongoing symptoms should undergo colonoscopy.