Role of Damage Control Surgery in Perforated Diverticulitis Management: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perforated diverticulitis is a critical surgical emergency that demands immediate attention and intervention. Damage control surgery (DCS) has emerged as an alternative to traditional approaches for managing physiologically unstable and critically ill patients. This systematic review includes 16 articles published between 2015 and 2025, covering randomized controlled trials, observational cohorts, case reports, and guidelines. The inclusion and exclusion criteria focused on human studies published in English that addressed managing perforated diverticulitis with DCS. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines were used to guide article selection, which was further refined using standardized appraisal tools such as A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), Joanna Briggs Institute Checklists (JBI), the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool, the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II), and the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). This review highlights DCS as an effective approach for managing perforated diverticulitis. Patient management with DCS showed significant improvement compared to traditional methods such as Hartmann's procedure. Physiological stabilization reduced complications such as stoma formation and improved anastomosis rates, as supported by the included studies. The findings suggest that DCS reduces morbidity and mortality, lowers the need for a stoma, and enhances bowel continuity in patients with perforated diverticulitis. Several studies also employed negative pressure therapy for temporary abdominal closure. The main prognostic factors identified were ongoing peritonitis and hemodynamic instability, which characterize critically ill patients. These findings underscore the importance of prioritizing patient stability and controlling disease severity at the outset, before proceeding to definitive therapy once the patient is stable. Further high-quality, multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are needed to develop standardized treatment guidelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".