Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Diverticular Disease: A Structured Review Across Clinical Settings and Operative Strategies.

IF 3.2 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Marie Hanaoka, Yudai Fukui, Koya Hida, Hiroya Takeuchi, Yusuke Kinugasa
{"title":"Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Diverticular Disease: A Structured Review Across Clinical Settings and Operative Strategies.","authors":"Marie Hanaoka, Yudai Fukui, Koya Hida, Hiroya Takeuchi, Yusuke Kinugasa","doi":"10.1002/ags3.70285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Laparoscopic surgery is increasingly used to treat colonic diverticulitis; however, its role in emergency, perforated, high-risk, and procedure-specific settings remains uncertain. This structured narrative review evaluated and synthesized comparative evidence by clinical setting, operative strategy, and patient risk profile to provide a clinical decision-making framework for identifying settings in which laparoscopy may offer meaningful benefits and those in which its role remains uncertain. In elective settings, randomized trials and observational studies generally demonstrated short-term advantages of laparoscopy, including reduced postoperative morbidity, less pain, faster recovery, and shorter hospitalization, although clear mid- or long-term superiority has not been established. In emergency, perforated, and high-risk settings, observational and nationwide database studies reported favorable short-term outcomes of laparoscopy; however, these findings were strongly influenced by patient selection, disease severity, and institutional expertise. Benefits were most consistent for resection-based procedures but were less clear for laparoscopic Hartmann procedures and inconsistent for lavage- or drainage-based strategies. Stoma creation rates tended to be lower after laparoscopy in selected cohorts, although this finding depended on disease severity and operative strategy. Evidence regarding intraoperative complications remains limited. Overall, laparoscopic surgery is associated with favorable short-term outcomes, with the most consistent evidence arising from elective diverticular surgery. In emergency surgery and perforated disease, however, the available evidence remains predominantly observational and susceptible to selection bias. These findings support a selective, context-dependent approach based on disease severity, patient condition, operative strategy, and institutional expertise, with careful surgical planning and timely conversion when necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":8030,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13590435/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ags3.70285","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Laparoscopic surgery is increasingly used to treat colonic diverticulitis; however, its role in emergency, perforated, high-risk, and procedure-specific settings remains uncertain. This structured narrative review evaluated and synthesized comparative evidence by clinical setting, operative strategy, and patient risk profile to provide a clinical decision-making framework for identifying settings in which laparoscopy may offer meaningful benefits and those in which its role remains uncertain. In elective settings, randomized trials and observational studies generally demonstrated short-term advantages of laparoscopy, including reduced postoperative morbidity, less pain, faster recovery, and shorter hospitalization, although clear mid- or long-term superiority has not been established. In emergency, perforated, and high-risk settings, observational and nationwide database studies reported favorable short-term outcomes of laparoscopy; however, these findings were strongly influenced by patient selection, disease severity, and institutional expertise. Benefits were most consistent for resection-based procedures but were less clear for laparoscopic Hartmann procedures and inconsistent for lavage- or drainage-based strategies. Stoma creation rates tended to be lower after laparoscopy in selected cohorts, although this finding depended on disease severity and operative strategy. Evidence regarding intraoperative complications remains limited. Overall, laparoscopic surgery is associated with favorable short-term outcomes, with the most consistent evidence arising from elective diverticular surgery. In emergency surgery and perforated disease, however, the available evidence remains predominantly observational and susceptible to selection bias. These findings support a selective, context-dependent approach based on disease severity, patient condition, operative strategy, and institutional expertise, with careful surgical planning and timely conversion when necessary.

腹腔镜与开放手术治疗憩室疾病:跨临床设置和手术策略的结构化回顾。
腹腔镜手术越来越多地用于治疗结肠憩室炎;然而,它在紧急、穿孔、高风险和特定手术环境中的作用仍不确定。这篇结构化的叙述性综述通过临床环境、手术策略和患者风险概况来评估和综合比较证据,以提供临床决策框架,以确定腹腔镜手术在哪些环境中可能提供有意义的益处,以及在哪些环境中其作用仍不确定。在选择性情况下,随机试验和观察性研究普遍证明腹腔镜手术的短期优势,包括降低术后发病率、减轻疼痛、更快恢复和更短住院时间,尽管明确的中期或长期优势尚未确立。在急诊、穿孔和高危情况下,观察性研究和全国数据库研究报告了腹腔镜手术的良好短期结果;然而,这些发现受到患者选择、疾病严重程度和机构专业知识的强烈影响。以切除为基础的治疗方法的疗效最一致,但腹腔镜Hartmann治疗方法的疗效不太明确,以灌洗或引流为基础的治疗方法的疗效不一致。在选定的队列中,腹腔镜术后造口率往往较低,尽管这一发现取决于疾病的严重程度和手术策略。关于术中并发症的证据仍然有限。总的来说,腹腔镜手术具有良好的短期预后,最一致的证据来自择期憩室手术。然而,在急诊手术和穿孔疾病中,现有的证据仍然主要是观察性的,容易受到选择偏差的影响。这些发现支持基于疾病严重程度、患者病情、手术策略和机构专业知识的选择性、情境依赖的方法,并在必要时进行仔细的手术计划和及时转换。
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
Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery
Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
98
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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