Open versus laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of diverticular colovesical fistulas: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The aim of this study was to analyze the evidence regarding open versus laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of diverticular colovesical fistula (CVF) in terms of perioperative outcomes.

Methods: A systematic review was performed using PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases for studies comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery for CVF. We pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) using random or fixed effects models.

Results: Five non-randomized studies with 227 patients met the inclusion criteria. All were retrospective studies, published between 2014 and 2020. For laparoscopic surgery, the pooled rate for conversion to laparotomy was 36%. Laparoscopic and open procedures required similar operative time (MD: -11.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -51.41 to 28.16). No difference was found in terms of stoma rates between laparoscopic and open surgery (OR: 1.12; 95% CI 0.44-2.86). Overall, the rate of total postoperative complications was lower in the laparoscopic group (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.30-0.99). The pooled analysis showed equivalent rates of anastomotic leaks (OR: 0.61; 95% CI 0.15-2.45), surgical site infections (OR: 0.44; 95% CI 0.19-1.01), and mortality (OR: 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.15). The length of stay was significantly reduced with laparoscopic surgery (MD: -2.89; 95% CI -4.20 to -1.58).

Conclusion: Among patients with CVF, the laparoscopic approach appears to have shorter hospital length of stay, with no differences in anastomotic leaks, surgical site infections, stoma rates, and mortality, when compared with open surgery.