Background In Western countries, the incidence of acute diverticulitis (AD) is increasing. Patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis can undergo a standard antibiotic treatment in an outpatient setting. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the safety and efficacy of the management of acute diverticulitis in an outpatient setting. Methods A literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Central and Web of Science up to September 2018. Studies including patients who had outpatient management of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis were considered. We manually checked the reference lists of all included studies to identify any additional studies. Primary outcome was the overall failure rates in the outpatient setting. The failure of outpatient setting was defined as any emergency hospital admission in patients who had outpatient treatment for AD in the previous 60 days. A subgroup analysis of failure was performed in patients with AD of the left colon, with or without comorbidities, with previous episodes of AD, in patients with diabetes, with different severity of AD (pericolic air and abdominal abscess), with or without antibiotic treatment, with ambulatory versus home care unit follow-up, with or without protocol and where outpatient management is a common practice. The secondary outcome was the rate of emergency surgical treatment or percutaneous drainage in patients who failed outpatient treatment. Results This systematic review included 21 studies including 1781 patients who had outpatient management of AD including 11 prospective, 9 retrospective and only 1 randomized trial. The meta-analysis showed that outpatient management is safe, and the overall failure rate in an outpatient setting was 4.3% (95% CI 2.6%-6.3%). Localization of diverticulitis is not a selection criterion for an outpatient strategy (p 0.512). The other subgroup analyses did not report any factors that influence the rate of failure: previous episodes of acute diverticulitis (p = 0.163), comorbidities (p = 0.187), pericolic air (p = 0.653), intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.326), treatment according to a registered protocol (p = 0.078), type of follow-up (p = 0.700), type of antibiotic treatment (p = 0.647) or diabetes (p = 0.610). In patients who failed outpatient treatment, the majority had prolonged antibiotic therapy and only few had percutaneous drainage for an abscess (0.13%) or surgical intervention for perforation (0.06%). These results should be interpreted with some caution because of the low quality of available data. Conclusions The outpatient management of AD can reduce the rate of emergency hospitalizations. This setting is already part of the common clinical practice of many emergency departments, in which a standardized protocol is followed. The data reported suggest that this management is safe if associated with an accurate selection of patients (40%); but no subgroup analysis demonstrated significant differences between groups (such as comorbidities, previous episode, diabetes). The main limitations of t...

Rationale:Retroperitoneal colonic perforation is a rare cause of retroperitoneal abscess. It presents, more frequently in frail elderly patients, with heterogeneous signs and symptoms which hamper the clinical diagnosis. Subcutaneous emphysema with pneumomediastinum and iliopsoas muscle abscess are unusual signs. Colonic retroperitoneal perforation may be consequent to diverticulitis or locally advanced colon cancer. Due to the anatomy of the retroperitoneal space and different physiopathology, diverticular perforation may present with air and pus collection; on the other hand perforated colon cancer may cause groin mass and psoas abscess. We reported 2 cases of colonic retroperitoneal perforation from diverticulitis and locally advanced colon cancer, respectively. Aim of this report is to improve differential diagnosis based on clinical signs.Patients’ concerns:A 71-year-old man presented with pain in his left side, fatigue, fever, nausea, massive subcutaneous emphysema of the neck, and Blumberg sign in the left iliac fossa. A 67-year-old man presented with abdominal pain, sub-occlusion, left groin mass, left groin, and lower limb pain during walking, negative Blumberg sign.Diagnosis:In the first patient the computerized tomography revealed pneumoperitoneum, gas in the mesosigma, pneumomediastinum, wall thickening of the descending colon, and retroperitoneal collection from diverticular perforation. In the second patient abdominal CT scan found thickening of the sigmoid colon adherent to the iliopsoas and fluid collection.Interventions:In the first patient, a left hemicolectomy extending to the transverse colon, followed by a toilette and debridement of the retroperitoneum were performed. In the second patient, tumor of descending colon perforated in the retroperitoneum with iliopsoas abscess was treated with left hemicolectomy and a drainage of the abscess.Outcomes:The first patient underwent right colectomy with ileostomy in the 7th postoperative day for large bowel necrosis. He died of sepsis 2 days after. The second patient had regular postoperative and he is still alive.Lessons:The spread of retroperitoneal abscess in complicated colonic diverticulitis is different from that in advanced colonic cancer. The former can present with a subcutaneous emphysema, the latter with a groin mass. Hence a thorough clinical examination and radiological studies are needed to diagnose these conditions.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that is responsible for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which has rapidly spread across the world, becoming a pandemic. The “cytokine storm” (CS) in COVID-19 leads to the worst stage of illness, and its timely control through immunomodulators, corticosteroids, and cytokine antagonists may be the key to reducing mortality. After reviewing published studies, we proposed a Cytokine Storm Score (CSs) to identify patients who were in this hyperinflammation state, and at risk of progression and poorer outcomes. We retrospectively analyzed 31 patients admitted to Infectious Disease Department in “St. Maria” Hospital in Terni with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, and analyzed the “CS score” (CSs) and the severity of COVID-19. Then we conducted a prospective study of COVID-19 patients admitted after the definition of the CSscore. This is the first study that proposes and applies a new score to quickly identify COVID-19 patients who are in a hyperinflammation stage, to rapidly treat them in order to reduce the risk of intubation. CSs can accurately identify COVID-19 patients in the early stages of a CS, to conduct timely, safe, and effect administration of immunomodulators, corticosteroids, and cytokine antagonists, to prevent progression and reduce mortality.

AimTo provide a comprehensive evidence‐based assessment of the anatomical variations of the left colic artery (LCA).MethodA thorough systematic search of the literature up until 1 April 2019 was conducted on the electronic databases PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science (WOS) to identify studies eligible for inclusion. Data were extracted and pooled into a meta‐analysis using the Metafor package in R. The primary outcomes of interest were the absence of the LCA and the anatomical variants of its origin. The secondary outcomes were the distance (mean ± SD) between the origin of the inferior mesenteric artery (OIMA) and the origin of the left colic artery (OLCA).ResultsA total of 19 studies (n = 2040 patients) were included. The pooled prevalence estimate (PPE) of LCA absence was 1.2% (95% CI 0.0–3.6%). Across participants with either a Type I or Type II LCA, the PPE of a Type I LCA was 49.0% (95% CI 40.2–57.8%). The PPE of a Type II LCA was therefore 51.0%. The pooled mean distance from the OIMA to the OLCA was 40.41 mm (95 CI% 38.69–42.12 mm). The pooled mean length of a Type I LCA was 39.12 mm (95% CI 36.70–41.53 mm) while the pooled mean length of a Type IIa and Type IIb LCA was 41.43 mm (95% CI 36.90–43.27 mm) and 39.64 mm (95% CI 37.68–41.59 mm), respectively.ConclusionAlthough the absence of the LCA is a rare occurrence (PPE 1.2%), it may be associated with an important risk of anastomotic leakage as a result of insufficient vascularization of the proximal colonic conduit. It is also necessary to distinguish variants I and II of Latarjet, the frequency of which is identical, with division of the LCA being technically more straightforward in variant I of Latarjet. Surgeons should be aware that technical difficulties are likely to be more common with variant II of Latarjet, as LCA ligation may be more difficult due to its close proximity to the inferior mesenteric vein (IMV).