A 58-year-old man presents with two days of left iliac fossa pain, a temperature of 38.2 °C and a CRP of 120 mg/L. Fifty years ago the reflex was admission, intravenous antibiotics and — after a second attack — a sigmoid colectomy. Every one of those reflexes has been dismantled by trial evidence in the last fifteen years. This page gives you the classification spine (Hinchey and its descendants), the antibiotics-versus-observation trials, the abscess drainage threshold, the emergency-surgery evidence for the perforated patient, and the modern elective-resection debate — each with the numbers an examiner will ask for.^[1]

Definition and the classification lineage

Acute diverticulitis is inflammation, usually with micro- or macro-perforation, of a colonic diverticulum. The management-defining dichotomy is uncomplicated versus complicated: in uncomplicated disease the infection involves only the colon and does not extend to the peritoneum; in complicated disease the infectious process proceeds beyond the colon, staged by how far it has spread.^[1]

The classifications are cumulative history, and examiners expect the whole lineage:

Hinchey 1978 (operative, original). Four levels from surgical findings: 1 pericolic abscess; 2 pelvic, intra-abdominal or retroperitoneal abscess; 3 generalised purulent peritonitis; 4 generalised faecal peritonitis.^[1]
Sher 1997 (modified Hinchey). Stratifying diverticular resections by a modified Hinchey system — subdividing stage I into Ia (phlegmon/pericolic inflammation) and Ib (pericolic abscess) and stage II into IIa and IIb — showed Hinchey I laparoscopic resections completed without morbidity or conversion, establishing that the grade predicts operative difficulty.^[3]
Kaiser 2005 (CT-based modification). Stage 0 mild clinical diverticulitis; 1a confined pericolic inflammation; 1b confined pericolic abscess; 2 pelvic or distant intra-abdominal abscess; 3 generalised purulent peritonitis; 4 faecal peritonitis at presentation.^[1]^[4]
WSES 2020 (the classification to quote). CT-based, two groups. Uncomplicated — 0: diverticula, wall thickening, increased pericolic fat density. Complicated — 1a: pericolic air bubbles or a small amount of pericolic fluid without abscess (within 5 cm of the inflamed segment); 1b: abscess 4 cm or smaller; 2a: abscess larger than 4 cm; 2b: distant gas (more than 5 cm from the inflamed segment); 3: diffuse fluid without distant free gas; 4: diffuse fluid with distant free gas.^[1]

The classification is not decorative: each stage on this ladder maps to a different treatment on the management ladder below, and the WSES classification is explicitly designed to guide day-to-day management from the CT report.^[1]

Epidemiology

Acute colonic diverticulitis is one of the most common clinical conditions a surgeon meets in the acute setting.^[1] Two numbers reframe the old teaching. First, the lifetime risk of developing acute left-sided diverticulitis among people with diverticulosis is only about 4% — diverticulosis is common, diverticulitis is not. Second, the disease is no longer geriatric-only: Western data suggest up to one fifth of patients with acute diverticulitis are under 50 years of age.^[1]

The burden is real money: in 2015, annual US health-care expenditures for gastrointestinal diseases totalled $135.9 billion across 3.0 million hospital admissions, and diverticular disease is a leading contributor within that ledger.^[8] Geography matters: in several Asian populations right-sided diverticulitis outnumbers left-sided disease, and the WSES 2020 update formally integrates acute right-sided colonic diverticulitis into its scope.^[1]

Pathophysiology — from one diverticulum to faecal peritonitis

Hinchey's 1978 description remains the cleanest mechanistic account. Inflammatory complications usually result from inflammation around a single diverticulum; this may lead to a pericolic or pelvic abscess, and free perforation of such an abscess produces purulent peritonitis — by then the original communication with the bowel lumen is usually obliterated. The lethal variant is different: with rapid evolution or failure of the diverticular neck to seal, a free communication persists between bowel lumen and peritoneal cavity, producing faecal peritonitis — which carries an extremely high mortality.^[2] That mechanistic distinction is why Hinchey III and Hinchey IV are different diseases at the operating table, and why Hinchey's group would not recommend primary anastomosis when free perforation with faecal peritonitis was present.^[2]

The sigmoid bears the disease because its narrow lumen and segmentation pressure load the wall at the entry points of the vasa recta — and because an inflamed sigmoid lies against bladder, vaginal vault, small bowel and abdominal wall, which is precisely the list of organs it fistulises to (below).^[24]

Clinical presentation and the limits of the bedside

The textbook picture is left lower quadrant pain with fever and raised inflammatory markers. The fellowship point is how poor the unaided clinical diagnosis is: in a prospective series of 802 consecutive emergency patients with abdominal pain, clinical diagnosis had a positive predictive value of 0.65 and negative predictive value of 0.98; adding cross-sectional imaging lifted these to 0.95 and 0.99, improved diagnostic accuracy in 37% of patients — but changed management in only 7%.^[1] Read that correctly: imaging is for the uncertain middle, not for the obvious.

The Laméris decision rule, quoted by WSES, condenses the bedside into three criteria — direct tenderness only in the left lower quadrant, CRP above 50 mg/L, and absence of vomiting — with most patients holding all three proving to have diverticulitis.^[1]

Presentations that signal complicated disease: generalised peritonism and sepsis (free perforation), a palpable mass (phlegmon or abscess), pneumaturia or faecaluria (colovesical fistula), recurrent urinary infection without a urological cause, and obstruction (stricture).^[24]

Investigations and imaging

CT is the established method of choice and the staging instrument for everything that follows; WSES nonetheless suggests ultrasound first where an expert operator is available, with a step-up to CT after an inconclusive or negative study (2B).^[1] The ACP takes the deliberately minimal position: use abdominal CT when there is diagnostic uncertainty (conditional, low-certainty) — the physician's counterweight to reflexive scanning.^[6]

The colonoscopy question is a favourite viva trap. After CT-proven uncomplicated diverticulitis the malignancy risk is low: in the 2014 systematic review (nine studies, 2,490 patients, colonoscopy in 1,468), colorectal cancer prevalence was 1.16% — and WSES concludes that routine colonoscopy in the absence of other clinical signs of cancer is not required after an episode of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis.^[1] The exceptions that mandate colonic evaluation are complicated disease (abscess mimics occult malignancy), no recent high-quality colonoscopy, and any red-flag feature. Notably, selective imaging, antibiotic-sparing and routine colonic evaluation were the three areas of persistent disagreement at the EAES/SAGES 2018 consensus — know both sides.^[7]

Uncomplicated diverticulitis — the antibiotics revolution

For decades, uncomplicated diverticulitis meant antibiotics by default. Two RCTs ended that:

AVOD (BJS 2012). 623 patients with CT-verified uncomplicated left-sided diverticulitis across ten Swedish and one Icelandic department, randomised with (314) or without (309) antibiotics. Complications (perforation or abscess) occurred in 1.9% without antibiotics versus 1.0% with (P = 0.302); median stay was 3 days in both; 1-year recurrence requiring readmission was 16% in both arms. Conclusion, verbatim worth memorising: antibiotic treatment neither accelerates recovery nor prevents complications or recurrence.^[9] The 11-year follow-up (556 of 623 patients, 89.2%) found no difference in recurrence (31.3% both arms), complications (4.4% vs 5.0%), surgery for diverticulitis (6.2% vs 7.1%) or colorectal cancer — antibiotic avoidance is safe in the long term.^[10]

DIABOLO (BJS 2017). 528 patients with CT-proven first-episode uncomplicated diverticulitis at 22 Dutch sites, observational versus antibiotic strategy. Median time to recovery 14 versus 12 days (HR 0.91, P = 0.151); no significant difference in complicated, ongoing or recurrent diverticulitis, sigmoid resection, readmission, adverse events or mortality; hospital stay significantly shorter with observation (2 vs 3 days).^[11] At 24 months: recurrence 15.4% versus 14.9%, sigmoid resection 9.0% versus 5.0% (P = 0.085 — the trend that fuels the caution), with young patients (under 50) and a presenting pain score of 8 or higher at risk for complicated or recurrent disease.^[12]

The pooled answer. The individual-patient meta-analysis of both trials (545 observed, 564 antibiotics) found no difference in ongoing, recurrent or complicated diverticulitis or sigmoid resection at one year — and, crucially, no subgroup that would benefit from antibiotics, not even patients with pain score above 7, white cell count above 13.5 × 10⁹/L or previous diverticulitis.^[13]

The guideline positions. WSES 2020: in immunocompetent patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis without signs of systemic inflammation, do not prescribe antibiotics (1A); when antibiotics are required, oral administration whenever possible (1B); and the explicit exceptions — cover gram-negative bacilli and anaerobes when systemic manifestations exist or the patient is high-risk (immunocompromised, elderly, comorbid), and give antibiotics when there is pericolic extraluminal gas.^[1] ACP 2022 lands in the same place from the physician side: manage most uncomplicated patients as outpatients, and manage select patients initially without antibiotics (both conditional, low-certainty).^[6] WSES outpatient criteria: no comorbidities, tolerating fluids, self-caring — with re-evaluation within 7 days; the DIVER RCT showed outpatient treatment of selected uncomplicated diverticulitis is safe, effective and cheaper without harming quality of life.^[1]

The diverticular abscess — size is the decision

About 15–20% of patients admitted with acute diverticulitis have an abscess on CT.^[1] The decision variable is diameter:

Small abscesses. Antibiotics alone are safe and effective for limited collections — pooled failure 20%, mortality 0.6%; in the Gregersen systematic review (42 studies, 8,766 Hinchey Ib–II patients), abscesses under 3 cm were sufficiently treated with antibiotics alone, possibly as an outpatient.^[1]^[16]
The threshold. WSES names 4–5 cm as a reasonable limit between antibiotics alone and percutaneous drainage — beyond it, antibiotics fail to reach adequate concentration inside the cavity.^[1]
Large abscesses. Percutaneous drainage plus antibiotics (2C); if drainage is not feasible or unavailable, antibiotics alone first, clinical condition permitting — otherwise operate.^[1]

Two prognostic anchors for counselling. Gregersen: 25% of non-operatively managed patients recur during long-term follow-up, and acute surgery carried a 12.1% mortality versus 1.1% for non-operative treatment (a selection-biased comparison, but the direction is the point — operate only on failure).^[16] Kaiser 2005: a CT-proven abscess correlates with a high risk of non-operative failure regardless of age — 22.2% of abscess patients needed urgent resection, and conservatively treated pelvic (stage II) abscess recurred in 41.2% versus 13% for mild disease, the datum behind the historical push for elective resection after a drained abscess.^[4]

Emergency surgery for perforated diverticulitis

Hartmann's versus primary anastomosis — LADIES settled the frame

WSES 2020 recommends Hartmann's procedure for diffuse peritonitis in critically ill patients and selected patients with multiple comorbidities (2B), and primary resection with anastomosis, with or without a diverting stoma, in clinically stable patients without comorbidities (2B).^[1] The evidence pivot is the LADIES (DIVA arm) trial (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019): 133 patients with Hinchey III (93) or IV (40) peritonitis randomised to Hartmann's (68) or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis (65). 12-month stoma-free survival was 94.6% with primary anastomosis versus 71.7% with Hartmann's (HR 2.79, p < 0.0001), with no significant difference in short-term morbidity (44% vs 39%) or mortality (3% vs 6%).^[18] Quote the conclusion exactly, including its boundaries: in haemodynamically stable, immunocompetent patients younger than 85 years, primary anastomosis is preferable to Hartmann's for perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey III or IV).^[18] The DIVERTI and Oberkofler RCTs point the same way — equivalent mortality and morbidity, higher stoma-reversal rates after primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy.^[1]

Laparoscopic lavage — a cautionary trilogy

Lavage promised source control without resection or stoma — a seductive proposition that three randomised trials tested, with three different answers, and the ordering matters:^[21]

DILALA (2-year results, BJS 2018) — Hinchey III diagnosed at laparoscopy, lavage versus Hartmann's: lavage reduced the risk of further operations within 24 months by 45% (RR 0.55) with no mortality difference; colostomy at 24 months in 3 of 43 lavage versus 9 of 40 Hartmann's patients.^[23]
LOLA (LADIES lavage arm, Lancet 2015) — terminated early by the data safety board for an increased event rate in the lavage group; the composite of major morbidity and mortality at 12 months was 67% lavage versus 60% sigmoidectomy: not superior.^[19] At 3 years, morbidity and mortality remained equal, but 45% of lavage patients ultimately underwent sigmoidectomy — lavage deferred rather than avoided resection for nearly half.^[20]
SCANDIV (JAMA 2015) — 199 patients; severe complications 30.7% lavage versus 26.0% resection (NS), but reoperation for non-faecal cases 20.3% versus 5.7% (P = .01), and — the number every examiner wants — four sigmoid carcinomas were missed with laparoscopic lavage.^[21] At 5 years: recurrence after lavage 21% versus 4%, and 30% of lavage patients came to sigmoid resection, balanced against lower stoma prevalence among survivors (8% vs 33%).^[22]

WSES synthesis (2A): laparoscopic lavage and drainage only in very selected patients with generalised peritonitis — never first-line.^[1]

The physiological extremis pathway

For the unstable patient in abdominal sepsis, WSES suggests damage control surgery with staged laparotomies (2C) — sepsis control first, anatomical restoration after resuscitation — and an open-abdomen approach in selected, significantly physiologically deranged patients with ongoing sepsis.^[1] After adequate source control in complicated diverticulitis, a 4-day postoperative antibiotic course suffices (2B) — the same short-course logic as STOP-IT.^[1]

Elective resection — patient factors, not episode counts

The old rule — resect after two attacks — is dead. Recurrence is lower than previously thought: a prospective study reported 1.7% recurrence over 5 years after an uncomplicated episode, and the English study of over 65,000 patients managed non-operatively for a first episode found 11.2% recurrence at 4 years.^[1] WSES therefore suggests evaluating patient-related factors, not the number of previous episodes, when planning elective sigmoid resection (2D) — with elective resection still suggested after conservatively treated disease in high-risk patients such as the immunocompromised (2D).^[1]

The evidence for when surgery genuinely helps is the DIRECT trial (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017): 109 patients with recurrent (three or more presentations in 2 years) or ongoing symptoms after left-sided diverticulitis, randomised to elective (laparoscopic) sigmoidectomy versus conservative management. GIQLI at 6 months was 114.4 versus 100.4 (mean difference 14.2, p < 0.0001) — but the surgical arm paid a price: 15% anastomotic leakage, and 23% of the conservative arm crossed over to resection for ongoing complaints. The trial was stopped early for recruitment failure — itself a message about clinician equipoise.^[14] The cost-effectiveness analysis completes the picture: not cost-effective at 1 year (€123,365 per QALY), but 95% probability of cost-effectiveness at 5 years (€6,275 per QALY against a €20,000 threshold).^[15]

And resection is not a cure-all: in the Longchamp systematic review, 5.8% of 1,062 patients recurred after sigmoidectomy (a 15% headline figure is quoted for elective sigmoidectomy overall), with irritable bowel syndrome and the level of the anastomosis among the risk factors — which is why persistent-symptom patients need an IBS conversation before a consent form.^[26] For the post-abscess question specifically, the Lamb–Kaiser meta-analysis (22 studies, 1,051 patients) keeps the debate honest: recurrence 39% while awaiting elective resection, 18% without surgery, and only 28% of the whole abscess cohort escaped both surgery and recurrence.^[17]

Fistula — the complication with a signature symptom

Diverticular disease is the commonest cause of colovesical fistula — 91% of one high-volume series — and the treatment of choice is surgical resection: antibiotics temporise, they do not close the tract.^[24] The clinical signature is pneumaturia, faecaluria or recurrent polymicrobial urinary infection; the classical demographic is the man, or the woman whose uterus no longer interposes. Laparoscopic fistula takedown with sigmoid resection is safe and feasible in high-volume laparoscopic colorectal centres, with less surgical-site and medical morbidity than open surgery.^[24] Colovaginal fistula follows the same logic after hysterectomy; coloenteric and colocutaneous fistulae are rarer but share the resection principle.^[24]

Special populations

Immunocompromised. WSES: consider these patients at high risk for failure of standard non-operative treatment (2D), and plan elective resection after conservatively managed episodes (2D).^[1] The 2023 meta-analysis (10 studies, nearly two million subjects) quantifies it: emergency surgery risk ratio 1.76, postoperative mortality after emergency surgery 3.05, overall mortality 3.65 versus immunocompetent patients — while elective-surgery mortality was not significantly different, which is exactly why the elective conversation belongs in the quiet interval.^[27]

Young patients. The reflexive "diverticulitis under 50 is virulent, resect early" teaching has softened: up to a fifth of patients are now under 50, and while DIABOLO long-term identified age under 50 as a risk factor for complicated or recurrent disease, it did not justify blanket early resection — management remains stage- and patient-based.^[1]^[12]

Right-sided diverticulitis. More common than left-sided disease in select (particularly Asian) regions; it is usually solitary, has a low rate of complicated disease, occurs in middle-aged men, and its incidence does not increase with age — and caecal disease mimics appendicitis.^[1] WSES suggests all ALCD statements apply to ARCD.^[1] The meta-analysis of 10,129 patients shows non-operative management works on both sides: pooled recurrence 10% right versus 20% left, treatment failure 5% versus 4%.^[25]

Elderly and comorbid. These are the named exception to antibiotic-sparing (WSES lists them among high-risk patients who should receive antibiotics covering gram-negatives and anaerobes), yet selected elderly patients with comorbidities can still be safely managed at home.^[1]

Prognosis and the long tail

Recurrence climbs with the severity of the index episode: 1.7% over 5 years after uncomplicated disease, ~11% at 4 years in population data, 16% at 1 year in AVOD regardless of antibiotics, 25% after abscess, 41% after a conservatively managed pelvic abscess — and 5.8% even after sigmoidectomy.^[1]^[9]^[16]^[4]^[26] The morbidity that trials undercount is symptomatic: in the DIABOLO quality-of-life analysis, 32.2–38.2% of patients had persistent symptoms one to two years after an uncomplicated episode — flatulence, bloating, fullness and altered stools — with no difference between antibiotic and observational arms.^[28] And stomas follow emergency surgery: 12-month stoma-free survival was 94.6% after primary anastomosis versus 71.7% after Hartmann's in LADIES, and 5-year stoma prevalence among SCANDIV survivors was 8% after lavage versus 33% after resection.^[18]^[22]

Revision summary

Classify with the WSES 2020 CT classification (0; 1a/1b; 2a/2b; 3; 4) and know the Hinchey 1978 → Sher 1997 → Kaiser 2005 lineage.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]
Clinical diagnosis is weak (PPV 0.65): CT when uncertain; no routine colonoscopy after CT-proven uncomplicated disease (CRC 1.16%).^[1]^[6]
Uncomplicated, immunocompetent, systemically well: no antibiotics (WSES 1A), outpatient if self-caring, review within 7 days — AVOD and DIABOLO underpin it, and the IPD meta-analysis found no subgroup that benefits.^[1]^[9]^[11]^[13]
Abscess: antibiotics under ~3 cm, drain over 4–5 cm; quote Gregersen (20% failure, 12.1% vs 1.1% mortality) and Kaiser (41.2% pelvic-abscess recurrence).^[1]^[16]^[4]
Peritonitis: primary anastomosis for the stable, fit, immunocompetent under-85 (LADIES stoma-free survival 94.6% vs 71.7%); Hartmann's for the critically ill; lavage only for the very selected; damage control for extremis.^[18]^[1]
Elective resection: patient factors, not episode counts; DIRECT shows better QoL at a 15% leak price and 5-year cost-effectiveness; 5.8% recur despite resection.^[14]^[15]^[26]
Colovesical fistula: diverticulitis is the cause in ~91%; resection is the treatment.^[24]
Immunocompromised: RR 3.65 overall mortality — lower threshold to operate, elective resection after recovery.^[27]^[1]

What does Kaiser 2005 add (abscess in 19.4%, 22.2% of abscess patients needed urgent resection, recurrence 41.2% with pelvic abscess treated conservatively)?.^[4] Map the guideline stack: WSES 2020 (emergency, GRADE), ASCRS 2020 (US), ACP 2022 (physician, outpatient focus), EAES/SAGES 2018 consensus (51 statements, 41 recommendations, 97.6% consensus) and where they agree and disagree.^[7]

References28Show

[1]Sartelli M, Weber DG, Kluger Y, Ansaloni L, et al. 2020 update of the WSES guidelines for the management of acute colonic diverticulitis in the emergency setting. World J Emerg Surg, 2020.PMID 32381121
[2]Hinchey EJ, Schaal PG, Richards GK Treatment of perforated diverticular disease of the colon. Adv Surg, 1978.PMID 735943
[3]Sher ME, Agachan F, Bortul M, Nogueras JJ, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for diverticulitis. Surg Endosc, 1997.PMID 9079606
[4]Kaiser AM, Jiang JK, Lake JP, Ault G, et al. The management of complicated diverticulitis and the role of computed tomography. Am J Gastroenterol, 2005.PMID 15784040
[5]Hall J, Hardiman K, Lee S, Lightner A, 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.PMID 32384404
[6]Qaseem A, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Lin JS, Fitterman N, et al. Diagnosis and Management of Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med, 2022.PMID 35038273
[7]Francis NK, Sylla P, Abou-Khalil M, Arolfo S, et al. EAES and SAGES 2018 consensus conference on acute diverticulitis management: evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice. Surg Endosc, 2019.PMID 31250244
[8]Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC, Lund JL, et al. Burden and Cost of Gastrointestinal, Liver, and Pancreatic Diseases in the United States: Update 2018. Gastroenterology, 2019.PMID 30315778
[9]Chabok A, Påhlman L, Hjern F, Haapaniemi S, Smedh K; AVOD Study Group Randomized clinical trial of antibiotics in acute uncomplicated diverticulitis. Br J Surg, 2012.PMID 22290281
[10]Isacson D, Smedh K, Nikberg M, Chabok A Long-term follow-up of the AVOD randomized trial of antibiotic avoidance in uncomplicated diverticulitis. Br J Surg, 2019.PMID 31386199
[11]Daniels L, Ünlü Ç, de Korte N, van Dieren S, et al. Randomized clinical trial of observational versus antibiotic treatment for a first episode of CT-proven uncomplicated acute diverticulitis. Br J Surg, 2017.PMID 27686365
[12]van Dijk ST, Daniels L, Ünlü Ç, de Korte N, et al. Long-Term Effects of Omitting Antibiotics in Uncomplicated Acute Diverticulitis. Am J Gastroenterol, 2018.PMID 29700480
[13]van Dijk ST, Chabok A, Dijkgraaf MG, Boermeester MA, Smedh K Observational versus antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated diverticulitis: an individual-patient data meta-analysis. Br J Surg, 2020.PMID 32073652
[14]van de Wall BJM, Stam MAW, Draaisma WA, Stellato R, et al. Surgery versus conservative management for recurrent and ongoing left-sided diverticulitis (DIRECT trial): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2017.PMID 28404008
[15]Bolkenstein HE, de Wit GA, Consten ECJ, Van de Wall BJM, Broeders IAMJ, Draaisma WA Cost-effectiveness analysis of a multicentre randomized clinical trial comparing surgery with conservative management for recurrent and ongoing diverticulitis (DIRECT trial). Br J Surg, 2019.PMID 30566245
[16]Gregersen R, Mortensen LQ, Burcharth J, Pommergaard HC, Rosenberg J Treatment of patients with acute colonic diverticulitis complicated by abscess formation: A systematic review. Int J Surg, 2016.PMID 27741423
[17]Lamb MN, Kaiser AM Elective resection versus observation after nonoperative management of complicated diverticulitis with abscess: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum, 2014.PMID 25380010
[18]Lambrichts DPV, Vennix S, Musters GD, Mulder IM, 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.PMID 31178342
[19]Vennix S, Musters GD, Mulder IM, Swank HA, et al. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial. Lancet, 2015.PMID 26209030
[20]Hoek VT, Edomskis PP, Stark PW, Lambrichts DPV, et al. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage versus sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: three-year follow-up of the randomised LOLA trial. Surg Endosc, 2022.PMID 35606544
[21]Schultz JK, Yaqub S, Wallon C, Blecic L, et al. Laparoscopic Lavage vs Primary Resection for Acute Perforated Diverticulitis: The SCANDIV Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 2015.PMID 26441181
[22]Azhar N, Johanssen A, Sundström T, Folkesson J, et al. Laparoscopic Lavage vs Primary Resection for Acute Perforated Diverticulitis: Long-term Outcomes From the Scandinavian Diverticulitis (SCANDIV) Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg, 2021.PMID 33355658
[23]Kohl A, Rosenberg J, Bock D, Bisgaard T, et al. Two-year results of the randomized clinical trial DILALA comparing laparoscopic lavage with resection as treatment for perforated diverticulitis. Br J Surg, 2018.PMID 29663316
[24]Gilshtein H, Yellinek S, Maenza J, Wexner SD Surgical management of colovesical fistulas. Tech Coloproctol, 2020.PMID 32462452
[25]Huang SS, Sung CW, Wang HP, Lien WC The outcomes of right-sided and left-sided colonic diverticulitis following non-operative management: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Emerg Surg, 2022.PMID 36320045
[26]Longchamp G, Abbassi Z, Meyer J, Toso C, et al. Surgical resection does not avoid the risk of diverticulitis recurrence-a systematic review of risk factors. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2021.PMID 32989503
[27]Lee JG, Park YE, Chang JY, Song HJ, et al. Comparative outcomes of acute colonic diverticulitis in immunocompromised versus immunocompetent patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intest Res, 2023.PMID 37248174
[28]van Dijk ST, Daniels L, de Korte N, Stockmann HB, et al. Quality of Life and Persistent Symptoms After Uncomplicated Acute Diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum, 2019.PMID 30807455