Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Is there anything we can modify among factors associated with morbidity following elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis?



Key Questions Addressed
4 KEY QUESTION 4 KQ 4: What are the effects, comparative effects, and harms of pharmacological interventions (e.g., mesalamine), non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., medical nutrition therapy), and elective surgery to prevent recurrent diverticulitis? • Do the (comparative) effects and harms vary by patient characteristics, course of illness, or other factors?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Is there anything we can modify among factors associated with morbidity following elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis?
Author Silva-Velazco J., Stocchi L., Costedio M., Gorgun E., Kessler H., Remzi FH.
Country Department of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave/A30, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Year 2016
Numbers Pubmed ID: 26541732

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: Extraction Form for KQs 2 and 4
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Elective surgery
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Specific KQ KQ 4c: Surgery (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 4c: Surgery (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study Design Other single group study (for harms only)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other single group study (for harms only)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country USA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
USA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funder Non-industry (fully)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study name
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Associated articles
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Start and end years of the Study 1992
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2013
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria elective, restorative procedures for sigmoid diverticulitis performed using a minimally invasive approach
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria disease presentations requiring urgent surgery
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
if not an RCT, what was the directionality? Prospective
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific population? No (all comers)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Was diverticulitis diagnosed with CT? CT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
If NRCS, what analytic method was used to account for differences between study arms?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How was diverticulitis diagnosed diverticulitis was radiologically confirmed in 1032 patients (97.5 %), while outside preoperative imaging was not available in our institutional records in the remaining 27 patients
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about Design (or overall study) subgroups not extracted: ASA1; ASA 3; ASA 4; Conversion to open; Steroid use; Rectal transection technique; Linear stapler under direct vision; Knife transection; Operative experience (C20 cases); Operative time (per 30-min increments); Loop ileostomy creation
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Elective surgery Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 52
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Continuous data (in years) Mean 55
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
SD 12
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Categorical data No data entered.
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis Complicated diverticulitis 27
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific Complications of Diverticulitis Preoperative percutaneous abscess drainage
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (categorical) Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
History of (Prior) Complicated Diverticulitis Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 4: Time Since Last Episode of Diverticulitis Range 6-8 weeks
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about baseline characteristics No data entered.
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (continuous) Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: AE - Unplanned (re)hospitalization (CD IV)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 1059
Counts 120
Percentage 11
Outcome: AE - 30 day mortality (post-surgical, CD V)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 1059
Counts 2
Percentage 0.19
Outcome: AE - Serious (SAE)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 1059
Counts 296
Percentage 28
note
Outcome: AE - Serious (SAE)      Population: BMI 30-35
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 1059
note vs BMI<30: OR 1.31 (95% CI 0.93, 1.84) P=0.12
Outcome: AE - Serious (SAE)      Population: BMI >= 35
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 1059
note vs BMI<30: OR 1.05 (95% CI 0.68, 1.60) P=0.84
Outcome: AE - Serious (SAE)      Population: Complicated diverticulitis
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 1059
note vs. uncomplicated diverticulitis OR 1.32 (95% CI 0.96, 1.82) P=0.08
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 1059
Counts
Percentage 3.7
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: BMI 30-35
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 1059
note vs BMI<30: OR 1.33 (95% CI 0.69, 2.55) P=0.39
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: BMI >= 35
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 1059
note vs BMI<30: OR 2.30 (95% CI 1.16, 4.55) P=0.017
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: Complicated diverticulitis
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 1059
note vs uncomplicated diverticulitis: OR 2.37 (95% CI 1.36, 4.11) P=0.002
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 1059
Counts 64
Percentage 6


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Q14: Cochrane - Random sequence generation (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate generation of a randomized sequence
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q15: Cochrane - Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q16: Cochrane - Blinding of participants (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants during the study
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q17: Cochrane - Blinding of personnel/ care providers (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by personnel/care providers during the study.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q18: Cochrane - FOR OBJECTIVE OUTCOMES - Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias): Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q20: Cochrane - Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q21: Cochrane - Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting Unclear Lumping of AE outcomes into a single outcome could be problematic
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q22: Cochrane - Other Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table. If yes, describe them in the Notes. Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q1: ROBINS-I 1.1 Is there potential for confounding of the effect of intervention in this study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q3: ROBINS-I 1.4. Did the authors use an appropriate analysis method that controlled for all the important confounding domains?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q4: ROBINS-I 1.5. If Y/PY to 1.4: Were confounding domains that were controlled for measured validly and reliably by the variables available in this study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q5: ROBINS-I 1.6. Did the authors control for any post-intervention variables that could have been affected by the intervention?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q6: ROBINS-I - Risk of bias judgement for BIAS DUE TO CONFOUNDING
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q7: ROBINS-I 2.1. Was selection of participants into the study (or into the analysis) based on participant characteristics observed after the start of intervention?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q8: ROBINS-I 2.2. If Y/PY to 2.1: Were the post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be associated with intervention?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q9: ROBINS-I 2.3 If Y/PY to 2.2: Were the post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be influenced by the outcome or a cause of the outcome?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q10: ROBINS-I 2.4. Do start of follow-up and start of intervention coincide for most participants?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q12: ROBINS-I 2.5. If Y/PY to 2.2 and 2.3, or N/PN to 2.4: Were adjustment techniques used that are likely to correct for the presence of selection biases?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q13: ROBINS-I - Risk of bias judgement for BIAS IN SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS INTO THE STUDY
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q2: Did the study divide the follow up time of each individual participant into the different interventions?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q11: Did the start and follow up calendar years coincide for most participants in the study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q19: Cochrane - FOR SUBJECTIVE OUTCOMES - Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias): Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q23: NHLBI - Were eligibility/selection criteria for the study population prespecified and clearly described? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q24: NHLBI - Was the test/service/intervention clearly described and delivered consistently across the study population? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q25: NHLBI - Were the outcome measures prespecified, clearly defined, valid, reliable, and assessed consistently across all study participants? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.