Peripheral vs pedicle division in laparoscopic resection of sigmoid diverticulitis: a 10-year experience
Laparoscopic rectosigmoid resection is the standard surgical treatment for recurrent sigmoid diverticulitis. However, speaking of mesenterium division, no unique standard procedure is actually provided. Surgeons can perform it at the level of either the sigmoid vessels or the inferior mesenteric vessels. The objective of this study was to compare intra- and postoperative complications of both techniques.
From a prospective collected database of patients that underwent elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection between January 2004 and December 2014, a retrospective analysis according to the selected operative technique was performed.
A total of 1016 patients were operated, and a pedicle division of the mesenteric vessels was performed in 280 patients (central group 27.6%) while a peripheral division was performed in 736 patients (peripheral group 72.4%). Comparison of these two groups demonstrated no statistically significant difference regarding age or stage of disease. Thirteen patients (1.3%) developed anastomotic leak; among them, nine belonged to the peripheral group (1.2 vs 1.4% p = 0.794). Twenty-four patients (2.4%) developed postoperative rectal bleeding but only in nine cases was a bleeding of the anastomosis confirmed using endoscopy (seven peripheral group vs two central group, 0.95 vs 0.7% p = 0.712). Moreover, postoperative morbidity did not significantly differ between the two groups. A very low mortality rate was observed, with 2 deaths (both in the peripheral group).
Ligation of inferior mesenteric vessels does not seem to affect anastomotic healing; both surgical techniques presented similar incidence of anastomotic bleeding. In this analysis, we could not identify any significant difference in overall morbidity and mortality.
KeywordsLaparoscopic rectosigmoid resection Pedicle and peripheral division mesenteric vessels Anastomotic leak Anastomosis bleeding
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no potential conflicts of interest.
- 1.Dwivedi A, Chahin F, Agrawal S et al. (2002) Laparoscopic colectomy vs. open colectomy for sigmoid diverticular disease. Dis Col Rectum 45(10):1309–14Google Scholar
- 2.Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J et al. (2005) Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD003145
- 9.Cirocchi R, Trastulli S, Farinella E, Desiderio J, Listorti C, Parisi A, Noya G, Boselli C (2012) Is inferior mesenteric artery ligation during sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease associated with increased anastomotic leakage? A metaanalysis of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials. Color Dis 14:e521–e529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Sohn M, Schlitt HJ, Hornung M et al (2017) Preservation of the superior rectal artery: influence of surgical technique anastomotic healing and postoperative morbidity in laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease. Int J Colorectal Dis 32(7):955–960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-017-2792-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Killingback M (1990) Diverticulitis of the colon. In: Fazio VW (ed) Current therapy in colon and rectal surgery. Decker, Philadelphia, pp 222–231Google Scholar
- 29.Lehmann RK, Brounts LR, Johnson EK, Rizzo JA, Steele SR (2011) Does sacrifice of the inferior mesenteric artery or superior rectal artery affect anastomotic leak following sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis? A retrospective review. Am J Surg 201(5):623–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.01.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Trencheva K, Morrissey KP, Wells M, Mancuso CA, Lee SW, Sonoda T, Michelassi F, Charlson ME, Milsom JW (2013) Identifying important predictors for anastomotic leak after colon and rectal resection: prospective study on 616 patients. Ann Surg 257(1):108–113. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318262a6cd CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar