Is there consensus on diagnostics and treatment in colonic diverticulitis? Results of international survey.

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines (CGs) developed by expert communities benefit both the patient and the clinician. Meanwhile a considerable proportion of specialists are not familiar with or follow them in their daily practice. Colonic diverticulitis (CD) is the third most common cause of hospitalization among patients with gastrointestinal diseases and common indication for colon resection. Actual tactics for diagnosis and treatment of CD, as well as data on what influences its choice and how the decisions made agree with the existing CGs can be identified by anonymous surveys.

METHODS

An anonymous internet survey of surgeons and coloproctologists was conducted. Groups of questions included demographics of the respondents; self-esteem score; sources of guidance in decision-making; classification systems for CD; preferable diagnostic tests; management of CD; indications for elective surgery; and outcomes of surgical treatment and others (n = 17). The study was conducted in accordance with the CHERRIES criteria. The required minimum sample size was calculated as 377 participants.

RESULTS

The study involved 401 respondents from 9 countries: 76.1% were general surgeons and 14.5% were colorectal surgeons. Excellent or good knowledge of the problem was claimed by 82.8% of the colorectal vs 66.2% of the general surgeons (p = 0.013). In decision-making respondents were largely guided by their professional experience, methods adopted in their clinic and domestic CGs. General Surgeons more often chose tactics inconsistent with CGs than coloproctologists. The largest differences between subgroups were noted for awareness of the reversal of Hartmann's procedure, most common postoperative complications and indications for elective surgery.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to the existing CGs was poor, which entails significant variation in the approaches practiced by the respondents from different cohorts. There is no consensus on the aspects that are not yet covered in the CGs. Further research is needed to elucidate these gaps and update the guidelines accordingly.