Добавил:

Sekretar kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.

Вуз:

Ростовский Государственный Медицинский Университет

Предмет:

Медицина общая

Файл:

Книга_1073_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf

Скачиваний:

Добавлен:

31.08.2026

Размер:

22 Мб

Скачать

☆

<<< < Предыдущая 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4041 / 5041 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 > Следующая >>>

398

https://t.me/medicina_free

S. S. Hill and A. Damle

should weigh “patient factors, intraoperative factors, and surgeon preference.” This chapter explores the most recent literature published over the last 20years regarding operative approach (i.e. Hartmann’s procedure vs. primary anastomosis) should be chosen for patient management in the setting of acute complicated diverticulitis.

Search Strategy

A comprehensive search of PubMed and MedLINE databases were performed using the following MeSH terms: “diverticulitis, colonic,” “anastomosis, surgical,” “ileostomy,” “colectomy,” and “colostomy.” The search was limited to the last 20 years (January 2002– August 2022) and non-English studies were excluded. Only the most recent study was used if it was a continuation of the same study from the same institution. All article abstracts were reviewed as well as full text when a study potentially satised the inclusion criteria. The reference lists of included studies were manually reviewed to identify additional studies to incorporate as appropriate. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were reviewed for their references but data were not used primarily. Studies using databases were excluded if they featured data from overlapping years and the studies with the most inclusive dates were chosen. The primary outcome evaluated was mortality (Table36.1). Secondary outcomes included major morbidity, stoma reversal rates, and morbidity associated with reversal. Each study was evaluated for its level of quality of evidence based on the GRADE approach [7].

Table 36.1 PICO Table

P (Patients) Patients with acute

complicated diverticulitis

I (Intervention) C (Comparator)

Hartmann procedure

Primary anastomosis

O (Outcomes) Primary: 30-day mortality

Secondary: 30-day morbidity, stoma reversal rate, reversal morbidity

36 Hartmann Procedure vs Primary Anastomosis forAcute Complicated Diverticulitis

https://t.me/medicina_free

399

Results

The initial search revealed 72 hits for “diverticulitis” AND “ileostomy” or “colostomy” and 165 hits for “diverticulitis” and “surgical anastomosis.” All abstracts were reviewed for studies that compared Hartmann’s procedure to primary anastomosis (with and without diverting ileostomy). Studies were removed according to above exclusion criteria. A total of 21 studies were used in the nal analysis. There were four prospective multi-center randomized control trials, four prospective nonrandomized series, nine retrospective series, and four retrospective database studies (Table36.2).

Table 36.2 Outcomes after index procedure of the analyzed studies

Postoperative major morbidity (%) after index procedure p-value

14^

0.02* Low

0.20 Very low

0.56 Low

Quality of Evidence

(continued)

Author (Year) Blair NP,

Germann E (2002) [12]

Mäkelä J etal. (2002) [13]

Zorcolo L etal. (2003) [14]

Regenet N etal. (2003) [15]

Constantinides VA etal. (2006) [16]

Richter S etal. (2006) [17]

Breitenstein S etal. (2007) [18]

Stumpf MJ etal. (2007) [19]

Vermeulen J etal. (2007) [20]

Zingg U etal. (2010) [21]

Mortality

Patients (n) Study type

RS 64 vs. 33 20 vs. 9 0.26 NR n/a Very low

RS 75 vs. 45 13 vs. 4 0.12 32 vs. 36 0.69* Low

RS 140 vs.

PS 33 vs. 27 12 vs. 11 NS NR n/a Moderate

PS 167 vs.

PS 36 vs. 5 60 vs. 11 0.007* NR n/a Very low

PS 30 vs. 30 17 vs. 10 0.69 37 vs. 30 0.58* Moderate

RS 30 vs. 36 17 vs. 0 0.03 33 vs.

RS 139 vs. 61 34 vs. 11 <0.01 33 vs. 13 <0.01 Low

RS 64 vs. 46 29 vs. 17 0.18 51 vs.

Hartmann’s

vs PA

176

248

(%) after index procedure p-value

20 vs. 6 <0.001 24 vs.

23 vs. 4 <0.001 22 vs. 19 0.46 Moderate

400

https://t.me/medicina_free

S. S. Hill and A. Damle

Table 36.2

Author (Year) Trenti L etal.

(2011) [22] Mueller MH

etal. (2011) [23]

Binda GA etal. (2012) [8]

Gawlick U, Nirula R (2012) [24]

Masoomi H etal. (2012) [25]

Oberkoer CE etal. (2012) [11]

Alizai PH etal. (2013) [26]

Bridoux V etal. (2017) [9]

Cauley CE etal. (2018) [27]

Lambrichts DPV etal. (2019) [10]

Lee JM etal. (2019) [28]

All outcomes are provided as % of patients in the Hartmann’s procedure vs. % of patients in the primary anastomosis (p-value). NR = not reported. NS = non-signicant. Retrospective series (RS), Prospective non-randomized series (PS), Prospective multi-center randomized control trial (PM-RCT), Prospective single-center randomized control trial (PS-RCT). The * symbol denotes instances where p-value for comparisons were not reported; these were calculated using a twotailed two-population z-test based on reported n in each cohort. When complications were reported by Clavien-Dindo scoring, those that were class IIIb-IV were considered major morbidities. Otherwise, a composite any-morbidity percentage is reported by the ^ symbol and composite surgical morbidity percentage is reported by the

(continued)

Postoperative

Mortality

Patients (n) Study type

RS 60 vs. 27 45 vs. 7 0.001 NR n/a Low

RS 26 vs. 47 27 vs. 4 0.008 46 vs. 30 0.16* Low

PMRCT

RSNSQIP

RS- NIS

PMRCT

RS 72 vs. 26 25 vs. 12 0.18 NR n/a Low

PMRCT

RS- NIS

PMRCT

RSNSQIP

Hartmann’s

vs PA

56 vs. 34 11 vs. 3 0.25 46 vs.

1678 vs.

340

56,866 vs.

3361

30 vs. 32 13 vs. 9 0.67 40 vs. 44 0.80 High

52 vs. 50 4 vs. 4 0.97* 14 vs.

65,084 vs.

2637

66 vs. 64 3 vs. 6 0.44 12 vs. 14 0.60 High

2915 vs.

239

(%) after index procedure p-value

6 vs. 8 NS NR n/a Low

5 vs 4 0.03 41 vs.

6 vs. 16 <0.001 23 vs. 32 <0.001 Low

8 vs. 3 0.01 55 vs.

symbol.

major morbidity (%) after index procedure p-value

35^

39^

14^

49^

Quality of Evidence

0.38 Moderate

0.04 Low

0.93 High

0.06 Low

36 Hartmann Procedure vs Primary Anastomosis forAcute Complicated Diverticulitis

https://t.me/medicina_free

It is important to note that quality of evidence for these studies varies from very low to moderate on the GRADE criteria. The randomized control trials [8–11] were all terminated early prior to meeting their a priori sample size calculations, ranging from 30%–56% of recruitment targets. Furthermore, there was wide variation in primary anastomosis technique in the randomized control trials with 66%- 100% of patients receiving diverting loop ileostomies. Then, the rest of the studies are retrospective studies at institutional, multi-institutional, or large database levels and are subject to the inherent biases related to retrospective studies, especially those of patient selection.

401

Mortality

For the primary outcome of post-operative mortality, none of the randomized controlled trials showed a statistical difference. Two of four prospective series [16, 17], ve of nine retrospective series [14, 19, 20, 22, 23], and two retrospective database studies [25, 28] found higher mortality rates in the Hartmann’s group. However, using the National Inpatient Sample, Cauley CE etal. [27] found higher rate of mortality in their primary anastomosis group (16% vs. 6% in the Hartmann’s group, p< 0.001), which could be partially due to the primary anastomosis cohort being older, having higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, and have more patients belonging to Medicaid insurance status. The remaining eleven studies found no signicant difference in mortality rates.

Post-operative Morbidity

All four of the multicenter randomized controlled trials reported on the secondary outcomes. There were no signicant differences in post-operative morbidity after index procedure. Two of the four prospective series looked at post-operative morbidity and both failed to nd a signicant difference. Six of nine retrospective studies reported data regarding post-operative morbidity and two studies observed less morbidity in the primary anastomosis group (24% in Hartmann’s vs. 14% in primary anastomosis, p=0.02, [14] and 33% in Hartmann’s vs. 13% in primary anastomosis, p<0.01 [20]). Two of three retrospective database studies that reported morbidity data found differences in post-operative morbidity but in differing directions; Cauley CE with 23% in the Hartmann’s cohort vs. 32% in the primary anastomosis cohort (p<0.001) using the NIS database but from 1998–2011 [27], while Masoomi H etal. observed 41% vs. 39% (p=0.04) also using the NIS database but from 2002–2007 [25].

402

https://t.me/medicina_free

S. S. Hill and A. Damle

Stoma Reversal

Stoma reversal rates and post-operative morbidity are summarized in Table 36.3. Two multicenter randomized controlled trials showed higher rates of stoma reversal in the primary anastomosis cohorts (90% for ileostomy reversal vs. 58% for colostomy reversal [11] and 96% vs 58% [9]). Only Oberkoer etal. [11] found a signicant difference in rates of complications following stoma reversal (20% following colostomy reversal vs. 0% following ileostomy reversal). Of the prospective studies, only Breitenstein S. reported both colostomy and ileostomy reversal rates, nding 60% vs. 96% (p=0.001), respectively, but no signicant difference in post- operative morbidity following reversal. Only two retrospective series reported both reversal rates [22, 26], and the latter showed a signicant difference in rates (58% in Hartmann’s vs. 85% in primary anastomosis, p= 0.046). No retrospective series reported both colostomy and ileostomy reversal post-operative morbidity. Only ve studies reported data on combined morbidity from both procedures (index resection and stoma reversal; Table36.3). All of the studies showed that primary anastomosis had lower overall morbidity rates but all failed to achieve statistical signicance.

In recent years, multiple meta-analyses and systematic reviews on these studies have been published. Cirrochi etal. included three randomized controlled trials and found no statistically signicant permanent stoma rate, anastomotic leaks, but found lower rates of intra-abdominal abscess after primary anastomosis [29]. Gachabayov M etal. combined seventeen studies and found patients with primary anastomosis had lower mortality in patients (OR 0.38, p<0.001), organ/space surgical site infections (OR 0.25, p=0.003), reoperation (OR 0.48, p=0.02), and ostomy non- reversal rates (OR 0.27, p=0.02) [30]. Ryan OK etal. analyzed twelve studies and found patients with primary anastomosis had lower rate of permanent stoma (RR 0.43, p=0.001), but no signicant differences in mortality or morbidity [31]. Lambrichts etal. evaluated eleven studies, including four randomized control trials, of patients with Hinchey III/IV diverticulitis comparing Hartmann procedure vs primary anastomosis and found no differences in mortality, morbidity, or re-intervention after index procedure but improved stoma reversal rates with primary anastomosis (OR

2.62, 95% CI 1.29–5.31) [32].

36 Hartmann Procedure vs Primary Anastomosis forAcute Complicated Diverticulitis

https://t.me/medicina_free

p-value

Combined

major

morbidity

(%) after

both

procedures

30-day

major

morbidity

(%) after

reversal (HP

vs. PA) p-value

403

Stoma

reversal rate

(%) (HP vs.

PA) p-value

Patients (n)

HP vs. PA

Study type

Table 36.3 Stoma reversal rates procedure of the analyzed studies

Author (Year)

Mäkelä J etal. (2002) [13] RS 75 vs. 45 45 vs. NR n/a NR n/a NR n/a

Zorcolo L etal. (2003) [14] RS 140 vs. 176 39 vs. NR n/a 20 vs. NR n/a NR n/a

56 vs. 34 60 vs. 65 0.66 24 vs. 5 0.06 25 vs. 38 0.11*

PS 30 vs. 30 60 vs. 96 0.001 27 vs. 8 0.10 33 vs. 20 0.12*

Regenet N etal. (2003) [15] PS 33 vs. 27 69 vs. NA n/a 24 vs. NR n/a NR n/a

Richter S etal. (2006) [17] PS 36 vs. 5 50 vs. 100 0.17* NR n/a NR n/a

Breitenstein S etal. (2007)

[18]

Trenti L etal. (2011) [22] RS 60 vs. 27 27 vs. 60 0.14* NR n/a NR n/a

Binda GA etal. (2012) [8] PM-

30 vs. 32 58 vs. 90 0.01 20 vs. 0 0.046 50 vs. 44 0.80

RCT

PM-

Oberkoer CE etal. (2012)

RCT

[11]

Alizai PH etal. (2013) [26] RS 72 vs. 26 58 vs. 85 0.046 NR n/a NR n/a

52 vs. 50 65 vs. 96 <0.001* 9 vs. 3 0.32* 17 vs. 16 0.42

RCT

Bridoux V etal. (2017) [9] PM-

66 vs. 64 68 vs. 83 0.09 16 vs 3 0.06 48 vs. 36 0.29

PM-

RCT

Lambrichts DPV etal. (2019)

[10]

All outcomes are provided as % of patients in the Hartmann’s procedure vs. % of patients in the primary anastomosis (p-value). NR=not reported. NS=non-

signicant. Retrospective series (RS), Prospective non-randomized series (PS), Prospective multi-center randomized control trial (PM-RCT), Prospective single-

center randomized control trial (PS-RCT). The * symbol denotes instances where p-value for comparisons were not reported; these were calculated using a

two- tailed two-population z-test based on reported n in each cohort. When complications were reported by Clavien-Dindo scoring, those that were class IIIb-IV

were considered major morbidities.

404

https://t.me/medicina_free

S. S. Hill and A. Damle

Recommendations Based ontheData

Primary anastomosis and diverting loop ileostomy in the setting of acute complicated diverticulitis is a safe procedure. There is no high-level evidence that there are differences in mortality or immediate post-operative morbidity between patients undergoing Hartmann’s procedure vs. primary anastomosis with diversion. Outcomes of meta-analyses have inconsistently demonstrated ndings of decreased mortality, intra-abdominal abscess, surgical site infection, and re-operation– all in favor of primary anastomosis. However, the key difference between the two cohorts lies in stoma reversal rates. Half of the randomized controlled trials showed a difference with 90–96% of ileostomies being reversed vs. 58–65% of colostomies. Only one study showed a statistically signicant difference in major morbidity following reversal. Ultimately, decision making regarding Hartmann’s vs. primary anastomosis should be inuenced by patient comorbidities such as poorly controlled diabetes, immunosuppression, their ability to tolerate a potential leak, and overall patient presentation (e.g. septic shock, hemodynamic instability, vasopressor requirement, etc.).

• Acute complicated diverticulitis patients with appropriate operative risk should

be considered for a primary anastomosis. (Grade of recommendation: moder-

ate; Quality of evidence: moderate).

The benet of diverting loop ileostomy in the setting of primary anastomosis has been more difcult to quantify. There are no randomized control trials comparing primary anastomosis with or without ileostomy in the setting of complicated diverticulitis. This stems from a fundamental lack of equipoise between the interventions given the published data regarding the consequences of anastomotic leak with and without the presence of a diverting stoma. For instance, a patient in septic shock with multiple severe medical co-morbidities would not be appropriate to randomize to a primary and unprotected anastomosis. Likely for these reasons, diverting loop ileostomy rates in the evaluated randomized control trials ranged from 66–100%. Ultimately, surgeons must balance the risk of anastomotic leak and its consequences with the morbidity of an ileostomy and second procedure for takedown on an individualized patient level.

• When performing a primary anastomosis for complicated diverticulitis, consid-

eration should be given to a diverting loop ileostomy. (Grade of recommenda-

tion: moderate; Quality of evidence: low).

Personal View

The decision to perform a Hartmann procedure vs primary anastomosis is does not neatly t into a “one size ts all” strategy. My primary considerations to operative approach include:

36 Hartmann Procedure vs Primary Anastomosis forAcute Complicated Diverticulitis

https://t.me/medicina_free

405

How long can the patient tolerate being in the operating room?

Severe hemodynamic instability, escalating vasopressor requirement, hypothermia, acidosis, and coagulopathy are indications for damage control surgery. In these patients, the primary goal is source control and subsequent resuscitation in the intensive care unit without consideration of anastomosis. However, in patients that respond to resuscitation and require minimal use of vasopressors, anastomosis should be considered.

What is the extent of contamination?

The level of contamination within Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis can vary widely. Often, in the setting of an acute perforation, a thorough washout is adequate to provide an appropriate environment from anastomosis. This can be more difcult when the perforation presents in a delayed fashion which may be associated with an abscess/phlegmon and less pliability of the otherwise healthy rectum to accept an anastomosis.

Will the patient be able to tolerate a leak? Will they tolerate an undiverted leak? Will

they be able to tolerate an ileostomy? Will medical optimization make them a

better candidate for an anastomosis in the future? Is a stoma technically

possible?

In the situation of a stable patient with a reasonably clean operative eld, the single most important question I ask myself is whether the patient can tolerate an anastomotic leak. Several scoring systems including the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) can be utilized to estimate the risk of morbidity and mortality in the setting of sepsis. In a patient where a leak and subsequent sepsis would be associated with very high rates of serious morbidity and mortality, I am more likely to perform a Hartmann’s procedure. This is particularly true if the patient has modiable risk factors that would signicantly lower their risk of complications if optimized. Conversely, consideration also has to be given to whether the patient will tolerate a stoma or if it is technically feasible. Patients with signicant prior small bowel resections or chronic kidney disease may suffer serious consequences from an ileostomy including dehydration, readmission, and worsening of their kidney disease. In these patients, consideration can be given to a diverting colostomy or a primary unprotected anastomosis. Finally, consideration has to be given as to whether a stoma can be performed at all. It is not infrequent to operate on patients with BMIs in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. In the severely obese patient, it may not be possible for an ostomy to reach the skin surface. In these patients, I am more likely to attempt a primary anastomosis, even if unprotected.

Overall, my goal is to perform a primary anastomosis whenever possible as long as the above-mentioned criteria are met. I often create a diverting loop ileostomy to mitigate the effects of a possible leak. I rarely, if ever, use a diverting colostomy due

406

https://t.me/medicina_free

S. S. Hill and A. Damle

to the increased complexity of reversal as well associated reach issues with the conduit. Typically, I will perform an on-table antegrade colonic irrigation though the enterotomy that I will subsequently use for the ileostomy. However, it is important not to get trapped into a pre-operative plan to perform a primary anastomosis if the situation is not appropriate. As in every other operation, there is no substitute for sound surgical judgement.

References

1. Peery AF, Keku TO, Martin CF, etal. Distribution and characteristics of colonic diverticula in a United States screening population. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jul;14(7):980–5 e1.

2. Hall J, Hardiman K, Lee S, etal. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of left-sided colonic diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020 Jun;63(6):728–47.

3. Hughes LE.Postmortem survey of diverticular disease of the colon. II.The muscular abnormality of the sigmoid colon. Gut. 1969 May;10(5):344–51.

4. Rankin FWB, P.W. Diverticulitis of the colon. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1930;50(05):836–47.

5. Sanderson ER.Henri Hartmann and the Hartmann operation. Arch Surg. 1980 Jun;115(6):792–3.

6. Hawkins AT, Wise PE, Chan T, etal. Diverticulitis: an update from the age old paradigm. Curr Probl Surg. 2020 Oct;57(10):100862.

7. Wilson JM, Holzgrefe RE, Staley CA, Schenker ML, Meals CG.Use of a 5-item modied frailty index for risk stratication in patients undergoing surgical Management of Distal Radius Fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2018 Aug;43(8):701–9.

8. Binda GA, Karas JR, Serventi A, etal. Primary anastomosis vs nonrestorative resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: a prematurely terminated randomized controlled trial. Color Dis. 2012 Nov;14(11):1403–10.

9. Bridoux V, Regimbeau JM, Ouaissi M, etal. Hartmann's procedure or primary anastomosis for generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis: a prospective multicenter randomized trial (DIVERTI). J Am Coll Surg. 2017 Dec;225(6):798–805.

10. Lambrichts DPV, Vennix S, Musters GD, et al. Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (LADIES): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, superiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Aug;4(8):599–610.

11. Oberkoer CE, Rickenbacher A, Raptis DA, et al. A multicenter randomized clinical trial of primary anastomosis or Hartmann’s procedure for perforated left colonic diverticulitis with purulent or fecal peritonitis. Ann Surg 2012 Nov;256(5):819–26; discussion 26–7.

12. Blair NP, Germann E.Surgical management of acute sigmoid diverticulitis. Am J Surg. 2002 May;183(5):525–8.

13. Makela J, Kiviniemi H, Laitinen S.Prevalence of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis is increasing. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002 Jul;45(7):955–61.

14. Zorcolo L, Covotta L, Carlomagno N, Bartolo DC.Safety of primary anastomosis in emergency Colo-rectal surgery. Color Dis. 2003 May;5(3):262–9.

15. Regenet N, Pessaux P, Hennekinne S, etal. Primary anastomosis after intraoperative colonic lavage vs. Hartmann's procedure in generalized peritonitis complicating diverticular disease of the colon. Int J Color Dis. 2003 Nov;18(6):503–7.

16. Constantinides VA, Tekkis PP, Senapati A. Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain I. prospective multicentre evaluation of adverse outcomes following treatment for complicated diverticular disease. Br J Surg. 2006 Dec;93(12):1503–13.

17. Richter S, Lindemann W, Kollmar O, Pistorius GA, Maurer CA, Schilling MK.One-stage sigmoid colon resection for perforated sigmoid diverticulitis (Hinchey stages III and IV). World J Surg. 2006 Jun;30(6):1027–32.

36 Hartmann Procedure vs Primary Anastomosis forAcute Complicated Diverticulitis

https://t.me/medicina_free

18. Breitenstein S, Kraus A, Hahnloser D, Decurtins M, Clavien PA, Demartines N.Emergency left colon resection for acute perforation: primary anastomosis or Hartmann's procedure? A case-matched control study. World J Surg. 2007 Nov;31(11):2117–24.

19. Stumpf MJ, Vinces FY, Edwards J.Is primary anastomosis safe in the surgical management of complications of acute diverticulitis? Am Surg 2007 Aug;73(8):787–90; discussion 90–1.

20. Vermeulen J, Akkersdijk GP, Gosselink MP, etal. Outcome after emergency surgery for acute perforated diverticulitis in 200 cases. Dig Surg. 2007;24(5):361–6.

21. Zingg U, Pasternak I, Dietrich M, Seifert B, Oertli D, Metzger U.Primary anastomosis vs Hartmann's procedure in patients undergoing emergency left colectomy for perforated diverticulitis. Color Dis. 2010 Jan;12(1):54–60.

22. Trenti L, Biondo S, Golda T, et al. Generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis: Hartmann's procedure or primary anastomosis? Int J Color Dis. 2011 Mar;26(3):377–84.

23. Mueller MH, Karpitschka M, Renz B, etal. Co-morbidity and postsurgical outcome in patients with perforated sigmoid diverticulitis. Int J Color Dis. 2011 Feb;26(2):227–34.

24. Gawlick U, Nirula R.Resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion instead of Hartmann's: evolving the management of diverticulitis using NSQIP data. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012 Apr;72(4):807–814; quiz 1124.

25. Masoomi H, Stamos MJ, Carmichael JC, Nguyen B, Buchberg B, Mills S.Does primary anastomosis with diversion have any advantages over Hartmann's procedure in acute diverticulitis? Dig Surg. 2012;29(4):315–20.

26. Alizai PH, Schulze-Hagen M, Klink CD, et al. Primary anastomosis with a defunctioning stoma versus Hartmann's procedure for perforated diverticulitis--a comparison of stoma reversal rates. Int J Color Dis 2013 Dec 28(12):1681–1688.

27. Cauley CE, Patel R, Bordeianou L.Use of primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy in patients with acute diverticulitis requiring urgent operative intervention. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 May;61(5):586–92.

28. Lee JM, Bai PCJ, El Hechi M, etal. Hartmann's procedure vs primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy for acute diverticulitis: Nationwide analysis of 2,729 emergency surgery patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2019 Jul;229(1):48–55.

29. Cirocchi R, Afshar S, Shaban F, etal. Perforated sigmoid diverticulitis: Hartmann's procedure or resection with primary anastomosis-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials. Tech Coloproctol. 2018 Oct;22(10):743–53.

30. Gachabayov M, Oberkoer CE, Tuech JJ, Hahnloser D, Bergamaschi R.Resection with primary anastomosis vs nonrestorative resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Color Dis. 2018 Sep;20(9):753–70.

31. Ryan OK, Ryan EJ, Creavin B, Boland MR, Kelly ME, Winter DC. Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing primary resection and anastomosis versus Hartmann's procedure for the management of acute perforated diverticulitis with generalised peritonitis. Tech Coloproctol. 2020 Jun;24(6):527–43.

32. Lambrichts DP, Edomskis PP, van der Bogt RD, Kleinrensink GJ, Bemelman WA, Lange JF.Sigmoid resection with primary anastomosis versus the Hartmann's procedure for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or fecal peritonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Color Dis. 2020 Aug;35(8):1371–86.

407

<<< < Предыдущая 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4041 / 5041 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 > Следующая >>>

Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана

#
31.08.202622 Мб0Книга_1068_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202622 Мб0Книга_1069_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202632 Мб0Книга_107_библиотеки_им_акад_М_И_Перельмана.epub
#
31.08.202622 Мб0Книга_1071_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202622 Мб0Книга_1072_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202622 Мб0Книга_1073_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202622 Мб0Книга_1074_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202622 Мб0Книга_1075_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202622 Мб0Книга_1077_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202622 Мб0Книга_1078_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202631 Мб0Книга_108_библиотеки_им_акад_М_И_Перельмана.pdf