Minimally invasive surgery for diverticulitis: a single-center retrospective study in the United States focusing on splenic flexure mobilization in elective sigmoid colectomy.

William N Doyle, Ashley J Alden, Jetsen A Rodriguez-Silva, Jin Kim, Sharan Poonja, Melissa A Kendall, Kaylee Smith, Carolina Martinez, Allen Chudzinski, Lisa Moudgill, Paul Cavallaro, Jorge E Marcet, Robert D Bennett
{"title":"Minimally invasive surgery for diverticulitis: a single-center retrospective study in the United States focusing on splenic flexure mobilization in elective sigmoid colectomy.","authors":"William N Doyle, Ashley J Alden, Jetsen A Rodriguez-Silva, Jin Kim, Sharan Poonja, Melissa A Kendall, Kaylee Smith, Carolina Martinez, Allen Chudzinski, Lisa Moudgill, Paul Cavallaro, Jorge E Marcet, Robert D Bennett","doi":"10.7602/jmis.2026.29.1.22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) is occasionally utilized during sigmoidectomy to facilitate a tension-free colorectal anastomosis. Present literature regarding its use, safety, and efficacy predominantly evaluates traditional laparoscopic vs. open techniques, thus not adequately representing the current minimally invasive surgical landscape.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort analysis evaluated SFM during sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease via traditional laparoscopic, single-incision laparoscopic, and robotic techniques at a United States academic institution from 2019 to 2022. Primary outcomes were the rate of SFM, independent predictors, and short-term outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 117 patients underwent sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis by six colorectal surgeons, of whom 27 underwent SFM. SFM was associated with higher rates of complicated diverticulitis (85.2% vs. 46.7%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), including abscess (55.6% vs. 33.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.037) and fistulae (59.3% vs. 17.8%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Presence of a fistula was an independent predictor of SFM by logistic regression (odds ratio [OR], 5.886; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Mobilization was associated with more concomitant surgical procedures (66.7% vs. 28.9%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). There was a significant association between SFM and conversion to open approach (14.8% vs. 3.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.049), longer length of stay (4.2 ± 2.8 days vs. 3.6 ± 4.3 days, <i>p</i> = 0.041), and increased operative time (241.7 ± 76.4 minutes vs. 199.2 ± 75.7 minutes). There was no difference in 30-day morbidity/mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Routine SFM can be considered in minimally invasive sigmoidectomy for complicated diverticulitis without significant impact on 30-day morbidity/mortality regardless of surgical approach and may be anticipated preoperatively, particularly when a fistula is present.</p>","PeriodicalId":73832,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","volume":"29 1","pages":"22-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13006758/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2026.29.1.22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) is occasionally utilized during sigmoidectomy to facilitate a tension-free colorectal anastomosis. Present literature regarding its use, safety, and efficacy predominantly evaluates traditional laparoscopic vs. open techniques, thus not adequately representing the current minimally invasive surgical landscape.

Methods: This retrospective cohort analysis evaluated SFM during sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease via traditional laparoscopic, single-incision laparoscopic, and robotic techniques at a United States academic institution from 2019 to 2022. Primary outcomes were the rate of SFM, independent predictors, and short-term outcomes.

Results: A total of 117 patients underwent sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis by six colorectal surgeons, of whom 27 underwent SFM. SFM was associated with higher rates of complicated diverticulitis (85.2% vs. 46.7%, p < 0.001), including abscess (55.6% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.037) and fistulae (59.3% vs. 17.8%, p < 0.001). Presence of a fistula was an independent predictor of SFM by logistic regression (odds ratio [OR], 5.886; p < 0.001). Mobilization was associated with more concomitant surgical procedures (66.7% vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001). There was a significant association between SFM and conversion to open approach (14.8% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.049), longer length of stay (4.2 ± 2.8 days vs. 3.6 ± 4.3 days, p = 0.041), and increased operative time (241.7 ± 76.4 minutes vs. 199.2 ± 75.7 minutes). There was no difference in 30-day morbidity/mortality.

Conclusion: Routine SFM can be considered in minimally invasive sigmoidectomy for complicated diverticulitis without significant impact on 30-day morbidity/mortality regardless of surgical approach and may be anticipated preoperatively, particularly when a fistula is present.

憩室炎的微创手术:美国的一项单中心回顾性研究,重点是选择性乙状结肠切除术中脾屈曲活动。
目的:在乙状结肠切除术中,脾脏屈曲动员(SFM)偶尔被用于促进无张力结肠直肠吻合。目前关于其使用、安全性和有效性的文献主要评估传统腹腔镜与开放技术,因此不能充分代表当前的微创手术前景。方法:本回顾性队列分析评估了2019年至2022年在美国一家学术机构通过传统腹腔镜、单切口腹腔镜和机器人技术进行乙状结肠切除术治疗憩室疾病时的SFM。主要结局为SFM发生率、独立预测因子和短期结局。结果:117例患者由6名结直肠外科医生行乙状结肠切除术治疗憩室炎,其中27例行SFM。SFM与复杂性憩室炎发生率较高相关(85.2%比46.7%,p < 0.001),包括脓肿(55.6%比33.3%,p = 0.037)和瘘管(59.3%比17.8%,p < 0.001)。通过logistic回归分析,瘘的存在是SFM的独立预测因子(优势比[OR], 5.886; p < 0.001)。活动与更多的外科手术相关(66.7%对28.9%,p < 0.001)。SFM与转开入路(14.8% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.049)、住院时间延长(4.2±2.8天vs. 3.6±4.3天,p = 0.041)、手术时间延长(241.7±76.4分钟vs. 199.2±75.7分钟)有显著相关性。30天发病率/死亡率无差异。结论:对于复杂性憩室炎的微创乙状结肠切除术,无论采用何种手术方式,均可考虑常规SFM,对30天的发病率/死亡率无显著影响,术前可预期,特别是当存在瘘管时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书