Laparoscopic-assisted reversal of Hartmann's procedure

Ачкасов, С. И.; Vorobiev, G. I.; Zhuchenko, A P; Rinchinov, M.

doi:10.2298/aci1003059a

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, the mean total theatre time of patients in the laparoscopic group was 34 min longer than that of patients in the open group. This result differs from most previous studies, which have reported a shorter mean ‘operative time’ in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group; only Svenningsen et al . reported a longer ‘knife time’ in their laparoscopic group.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…published a systematic review and meta‐analysis of eight retrospective studies comparing laparoscopic with open reversal of Hartmann's procedure. Since this review, five further retrospective studies and one large multicentre study using prospectively collected data extracted from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database have also been published. These studies have consistently supported the hypothesis that laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure is associated with fewer post‐operative complications, a lower mortality rate and a shorter length of hospital stay compared with open reversal of Hartmann's procedure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Laparoscopic versus open reversal of Hartmann's procedure: a retrospective review

Yang

Morgan

2014

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results: Patients in the two groups were comparable in age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and number of previous operations. The most common indication for the original Hartmann's operation in both groups was diverticular disease. Total theatre time was longer for the laparoscopic group (276.4 versus 242.0 min; P = 0.02). Three patients in the laparoscopic group required conversion to laparotomy (7%). Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure was associated with shorter time to passage of flatus (2.8 versus 4.0 days; P < 0.001) and faeces (4.2 versus 5.6 days; P = 0.002), and shorter overall length of hospital stay (6.7 versus 10.8 days; P < 0.001). There were fewer patients in the laparoscopic group who had post-operative complications (14% versus 31%; P = 0.04), including fewer cases of post-operative ileus (2% versus 17%; P = 0.02). There were no cases of anastomotic leak or in-hospital mortality in either group. Conclusion: Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure is a safe and feasible alternative to open Hartmann's reversal and may be associated with significantly faster recovery time and fewer post-operative complications.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic versus open reversal of Hartmann's procedure: a retrospective review

Yang

Morgan

2014

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Full texts with relative bibliographies were thus appraised, and a total of 26 studies were eventually deemed suitable for inclusion and data extraction. [2, 11, 17–40] The selection process is given in Fig. 1, while Table 1 describes the general characteristics of the included studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conventional Versus Minimally Invasive Hartmann Takedown: A Meta‐analysis of the Literature

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although end colostomy closure following Hartmann's procedure is a major surgery that is traditionally performed by conventional celiotomy, over the last decade there has been a growing interest toward the application of different minimally invasive techniques. We aimed at evaluating the relative outcomes of conventional surgery versus minimally invasive surgery by meta-analyzing the available data from the medical literature. The PubMed/ MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and EMBASE electronic databases were searched through August 2018. Inclusion criteria considered eligible all comparative studies evaluating open versus minimally invasive procedures. Conventional laparoscopy, robotic and single-port laparoscopy were considered as minimally invasive techniques. Overall morbidity, rate of anastomotic failure, rate of wound complications and mortality were evaluated as primary outcomes. Perioperative details and surgical outcomes were also assessed. The data of a total of 13,740 patients from 26 studies were eventually included in the analysis. There were no significant differences on baseline characteristics such as age, BMI and proportion of high-risk patients between the two groups of patients. As compared to the conventional technique, minimally invasive surgery proved significantly superior in terms of postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay and rate of incisional hernia. The current literature suggests that minimally invasive surgery should be considered in performing Hartmann's reversal, if technically viable. However, due to the low level of the available evidence it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions.

show abstract

“…Median postoperative pain score was significantly lower in LHR group (range 1–4.75 in OHR; 0–3 in LHR). Time to flatus ranged from 4 to 9 and 2 to 13 days in OHR and LHR group, respectively, and length of hospital stay elicited statistical significance in LHR group ( P = .018) with numerous studies reporting similar results [24–27] …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Time to flatus ranged from 4 to 9 and 2 to 13 days in OHR and LHR group, respectively, and length of hospital stay elicited statistical significance in LHR group (P = .018) with numerous studies reporting similar results. [24][25][26][27] There is no consensus on the proper method of gaining pneumoperitoneum. Our first step was takedown of the colostomy and adhesiolysis around the stoma site similar to the first LHR described by Gorey et al in 1993.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study between open versus laparoscopic Hartmann reversal

Cho

Kim

2021

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As one of the most challenging procedures in colorectal surgery, Hartmann reversal (HR) carries a burden of morbidity and mortality. We report our experience and compare open and laparoscopic HR.Between December 2012 and January 2020, 30 patients who underwent Hartmann reversal were reviewed. All patients either received laparoscopic or open reversal.Of the 87 patients who underwent Hartmann operation (HO), 30 patients received HR (Laparoscopic Hartmann Reversal, [LHR], n = 20; Open Hartmann Reversal, Open Hartmann Reversal [OHR], n = 10). There were 15 males and 15 female patients. The mean operation time was 223.8 minutes (range 115-350 minutes) with mean blood loss of 252.5 mL (range 0-700 mL). There was no conversion from LHR to OHR, and there was no ileostomy formation. Mean time to flatus was 5.0 days (range 2-13 days). There were 15 early postoperative complications and 5 late postoperative complications, but only 1 case of grade 3A. No anastomosis leakage was reported.HR is an operation that can be performed safely in well-selected patients. Minimally invasive techniques, such as LHR, is an attractive option resulting in shorter operation time, less blood loss, less pain, and shorter hospital stay.

show abstract

Laparoscopic-assisted reversal of Hartmann's procedure

Abstract: laparoscopic-assisted reversal of Hartmann's procedure promotes faster rehabilitation, its results are not worse than after open approach.

Cited by 10 publications

References 3 publications

Laparoscopic versus open reversal of Hartmann's procedure: a retrospective review

Laparoscopic versus open reversal of Hartmann's procedure: a retrospective review

Conventional Versus Minimally Invasive Hartmann Takedown: A Meta‐analysis of the Literature

A comparative study between open versus laparoscopic Hartmann reversal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About