Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 374

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Primary Anastomosis or Hartmann's Procedure for Perforated Left Colonic Diverticulitis With Purulent or Fecal Peritonitis

Oberkofler, Christian Eugen, Rickenbacher, Andreas, Raptis, Dimitri Aristotle, Lehmann, Kuno, Villiger, Peter, Buchli, Christian, Grieder, Felix, Gelpke, Hans, Decurtins, Marco, Tempia-Caliera, Adrien A., Demartines, Nicolas, Hahnloser, Dieter, Clavien, Pierre-Alain, Breitenstein, Stefan·2012·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcome after Hartmann's procedure (HP) versus primary anastomosis (PA) with diverting ileostomy for perforated left-sided diverticulitis. BACKGROUND: The surgical management of left-sided colonic perforation with purulent or fecal peritonitis remains controversial. PA with ileostomy seems to be superior to HP; however, results in the literature are affected by a significant selection bias. No randomized clinical trial has yet compared the 2 procedures. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with acute left-sided colonic perforation (Hinchey III and IV) from 4 centers were randomized to HP (n = 30) and to PA (with diverting ileostomy, n = 32), with a planned stoma reversal operation after 3 months in both groups. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary end point was the overall complication rate. The study was discontinued following an interim analysis that found significant differences of relevant secondary end points as well as a decreasing accrual rate (NCT01233713). RESULTS: Patient demographics were equally distributed in both groups (Hinchey III: 76% vs 75% and Hinchey IV: 24% vs 25%, for HP vs PA, respectively). The overall complication rate for both resection and stoma reversal operations was comparable (80% vs 84%, P = 0.813). Although the outcome after the initial colon resection did not show any significant differences (mortality 13% vs 9% and morbidity 67% vs 75% in HP vs PA), the stoma reversal rate after PA with diverting ileostomy was higher (90% vs 57%, P = 0.005) and serious complications (Grades IIIb-IV: 0% vs 20%, P = 0.046), operating time (73 minutes vs 183 minutes, P < 0.001), hospital stay (6 days vs 9 days, P = 0.016), and lower in-hospital costs (US $16,717 vs US $24,014) were significantly reduced in the PA group. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized clinical trial favoring PA with diverting ileostomy over HP in patients with perforated diverticulitis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0b013e31827324ba

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 374

Metadata

Authors
Oberkofler, C. E., Rickenbacher, A., Raptis, D. A., Lehmann, K., Villiger, P., Buchli, C., Grieder, F., Gelpke, H., Decurtins, M., Tempia-Caliera, A. A., Demartines, N., Hahnloser, D., Clavien, P.-A., & Breitenstein, S.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2012-11
Volume
256
Issue
5
Pages
819-827
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1976785098
Cited by
374
References
2
FWCI
24.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Primary Anastomosis or Hartmann's Procedure for Perforated Left Colonic Diverticulitis With Purulent or Fecal Peritonitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e31827324ba
The paper
Oberkofler, C. E., Rickenbacher, A., Raptis, D. A., Lehmann, K., Villiger, P., Buchli, C., Grieder, F., Gelpke, H., Decurtins, M., Tempia-Caliera, A. A., Demartines, N., Hahnloser, D., Clavien, P.-A., & Breitenstein, S. (2012). A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Primary Anastomosis or Hartmann's Procedure for Perforated Left Colonic Diverticulitis With Purulent or Fecal Peritonitis. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31827324ba

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.