Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure: safety and feasibility

A proactive technique for reversal of Hartmann's procedure: lifting the rectal stump to the abdominal wall

BACKGROUND

Reversing Hartmann's procedure is complicated owing to dense adhesions resulting from inflammation in the pelvic region. These adhesions pose challenges in identifying the rectum and increase the risk of pelvic organ injuries.

METHODS

We propose a technique to lift and fix the rectal stump to the abdominal wall to diminish adhesions to the rectum and facilitate identification of the rectal stump.

RESULTS

The patient underwent Hartmann's procedure for generalized peritonitis resulting from perforation of the sigmoid colon. The abdominal cavity was significantly contaminated with fecal ascites, and postoperative pelvic adhesions were anticipated. Therefore, the rectal stump was lifted. The outcomes demonstrated that despite the presence of dense adhesions in the abdominal cavity, the rectal segment was promptly identified during the reversal of Hartmann's procedure. The procedure proceeded smoothly and was deemed satisfactory.

CONCLUSIONS

The technique of lifting and fixing the rectal stump to the abdominal wall is useful in cases where dense pelvic adhesions are anticipated during the subsequent reversal of Hartmann's procedure.

Postoperative effects of laparoscopic Hartmann reversal: A multicenter propensity score matched study

BACKGROUND

Although the advantages of laparoscopic Hartmann reversal (LHR) compared to open Hartmann reversal (OHR) have been reported in the literature, the number of multicenter studies with good matching investigating this topic is rare. In the present study, we aimed to confirm the advantages of LHR in terms of short-term outcomes through propensity score matching of LHR and OHR groups, using data collected from multiple institutions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent Hartmann reversal at six institutions under the Catholic Medical Center of the Catholic University of Korea between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2021, were included. The patients were divided into the LHR and OHR groups based on the technique used. The two groups were matched using propensity score matching (1:1 ratio, logistic regression with the nearest-neighbor method). The primary outcome was postoperative ileus (POI) frequency, and secondary outcomes were time to solid diet (days) and length of stay (days).

RESULTS

Among 337 patients, propensity score matching was performed on 322, after excluding 15 who had undergone open conversion. Of these, 63 patients were assigned to each group through propensity score matching. There was no difference in the frequency of adhesiolysis (77.8% vs. 82.5%, p = 0.503) or the operation time. (210 (IQR 159-290) vs. 233 (IQR 160-280), p = 0.718) between the two groups. As the primary outcome, the LHR group showed significantly lower POI frequency than the OHR group. (4.8% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.0041) Regarding the secondary outcomes, the LHR group showed a shorter period to solid diet than the OHR group. The length of hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the LHR group (4 vs. 6, p < 0.0001; 9 vs. 12, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

LHR is an effective method to ensure faster recovery of patients after surgery compared to OHR.

Is laparoscopy a reliable alternative to laparotomy in Hartmann's reversal? An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on and updated meta-analysis of surgical postoperative complications after laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal (LHR) and open Hartmann's reversal (OHR).

METHODS

Studies comparing LHR versus OHR published from inception until June 2020 were selected and submitted to a systematic review and meta-analysis. Articles were searched in the MEDLINE and Cochrane Trials Register databases. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.0.

RESULTS

Twenty-three retrospective comparative studies (including 5 case-controlled studies) with a total of 3139 patients with LHR and a total of 10,325 patients with OHR were included. Meta-analysis showed that LHR was significantly associated with a decreased rate of revision surgery (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.60-0.89, p < 0.001), anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.49-0.75, p < 0.00001), postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.47-0.58, p < 0.00001), intra-abdominal abscess (OR = 0.67 [0.52-0.87], 95% CI = , p = 0.003), wound abscess (OR = 0.53 [0.46-0.61], 95% CI = , p < 0.00001), and postoperative ileus (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.29-0.72, p = 0.0008), respectively. Conversely, mortality was comparable between LHR and OHR.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that LHR significantly improved surgical postoperative outcomes. However, considering the low level of evidence, further randomized trials are required to validate these findings.

Comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic and open Hartmann's reversal: A single-center retrospective study in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal (LHR) has recently been reported to be safer and more feasible than open Hartmann's reversal (OHR); however, there is limited data on the outcomes of LHR compared with those of OHR from Asian countries. Therefore, we aimed to clarify the postoperative outcomes of LHR compared with OHR, and additionally compare the patient outcomes post-LHR according to the previous Hartmann's procedure (HP) approach.

METHODS

Patients who underwent OHR and LHR between January 2006 and September 2020 in a single center in Japan, were retrospectively evaluated. Patient characteristics and perioperative data were collected from the medical and surgical records and assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 15 and 19 patients underwent OHR and LHR, respectively, between January 2006 and September 2020. LHR was associated with less blood loss (median: 15 mL vs 185 mL; P < .001) and shorter hospital stays (9 days vs 14 days; P = .023) than OHR. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between LHR and OHR (26.3% vs 40.0%, P = .475). However, two severe anastomotic complications in LHR were observed in patients with the stump below the peritoneal reflection. No significant difference in outcomes was observed between LHR patients who underwent open and laparoscopic HP.

CONCLUSION

LHR resulted in positive outcomes regarding estimated blood loss and postoperative hospitalization, compared with OHR. Although the postoperative complications between LHR and OHR were not significant, patients with the stump below the peritoneal reflection may be at a high risk of anastomotic complications.

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

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic Hartmann Colostomy Reversal

Purpose

Hartmann operation is widely recognized as a useful procedure, especially in emergencies involving the rectosigmoid colon. One of the surgeon’s foremost concerns after Hartmann operation is future colostomy reversal, as colostomy reversal after a Hartmann procedure is associated with relatively high morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic surgical techniques continue to prove useful for an ever-increasing variety of indications. We analyzed the outcomes of laparoscopic Hartmann colostomy reversals at our center.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the hospital records of 170 patients who had undergone Hartmann operation between January 2010 and June 2017 at Wonkwang University Hospital. Among 68 Hartmann colostomy reversals, we evaluated and compared the outcomes of 3 groups of patients: 29 patients in the open colostomy reversal group (OG) who had undergone laparotomies for Hartmann reversals, 19 patients in the conversion group (CG) whose laparoscopic procedures had required conversion to a laparotomy, and 20 patients in the laparoscopy group (LG).

Results

The overall reversal rate for Hartmann colostomies was 40.5% during this time period. The duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter among LG patients (10.15 ± 2.94 days) than among OG patients (16 ± 9.5 days). The overall complication rate among OG patients was higher than that among LG patients (adjusted odds ratio, 8.78; P = 0.01). The most common complication was postoperative ileus (19.1%).

Conclusion

If no contraindications to laparoscopy exist, surgeons should favor a laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann operation over an open reversal.

Comparison between laparoscopic and open Hartmann's reversal: results of a decade-long multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Hartmann's reversal is a challenging surgical procedure with significant postoperative morbidity rates. Various surgical methods have been suggested to lower the risk of postoperative complications. In this study, we aimed to compare the postoperative results between open and laparoscopic techniques for Hartmann's reversal.

METHODS

A retrospective study of all patients who underwent Hartmann's reversal in five centers in central Israel between January 2004 and June 2015 was conducted. Medical charts were reviewed, analyzing preoperative and operative parameters and short-term postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

260 patients were included in the study. 76 patients were operated laparoscopically with a conversion rate of 26.3% (20 patients). No differences were found between patients operated laparoscopically and those operated in an open technique regarding gender (p = 0.785), age (61.34 vs. 62.64, p = 0.521), body mass index (26.6 vs. 26.2, p = 0.948), Charlson index score (1.79 vs. 1.95, p = 0.667), and cause for Hartmann's procedure (neoplastic vs. non-neoplastic, p = 0.644). No differences were seen in average time from the Hartmann's procedure to reversal (204.89 vs. 213.60 days, p = 0.688) and in overall complication rate (46.4 vs. 46.5%, p = 1). The Clavien-Dindo score for distinguishing between minor (0-2 score, p = 1) and major complications (3-5 score, p = 0.675) failed to demonstrate an advantage to laparoscopy, as well as to average length of stay (10.91 days in the laparoscopic group vs. 11.72 days in the open group, p = 0.529). An analysis based on the intention-to-treat with laparoscopy, including converted cases in the laparoscopic group, showed similar results, including overall complication rate (48.6 vs. 45.6%, p = 0.68) and Clavien-Dindo score in both minor (p = 0.24) and major complications (p = 0.44). Length of stay (10.92 vs. 11.81 days, p = 0.45) was also similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In this series, a laparoscopic approach to Hartmann's reversal did not offer any short-term advantage when compared to an open surgical approach.

Case Selection for Laparoscopic Reversal of Hartmann's Procedure

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure offers reduced morbidity compared with open surgery while improving reversal rates. However, it is one of the most technically challenging operations in minimally invasive colorectal surgery, with further < 20% of the reversal procedures being attempted laparoscopically. Complications related to late conversion to open surgery may suggest a selective use of the laparoscopic approach for Hartmann's reversal in a subgroup of patients: The aim of this study is to systematically investigate the literature to identify the ideal case for a laparoscopic approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were extracted from a systematic review of the literature of Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials. Subgroup analysis to identify suitable patients for laparoscopic surgery included age at surgery, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, indication for the index Hartmann's procedure (HP), interval time to reversal from the index HP, conversion to open surgery, and temporary ileostomy rate.

RESULTS

A total of 862 patients were included, with 403 cases performed laparoscopically. Conversion to open surgery occurred in 65 patients (mean 16.1%). The indication for the HP showed a trend toward more benign patients included in the laparoscopic group, and the interval time between the index Hartmann's procedure and its reversal was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group with a trend toward a higher rate of temporary ileostomy in patients undergoing an open procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' selection can explain these differences, with more complex disease operated via an open approach. Nevertheless, future studies are needed to demonstrate an increasing number of reversals attempted laparoscopically in high-volume centers.

Hartmann's reversal: a comparative study between laparoscopic and open approaches

BACKGROUND

A reversal of Hartmann's procedure can be performed using either a laparoscopic or open approach. However, laparoscopic reversal (LR) of Hartmann's procedure is challenging. This study was designed to compare the results between open and laparoscopic approaches.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected data. We analysed 29 patients who received Hartmann's reversal at Korea University Anam Hospital between April 2007 and September 2014. All patients underwent either LR (n = 17) or open reversal (OR, n = 12).

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar between the LR and OR groups. There was also no difference in mean operation time (212.5 versus 251.8 min), diversion ileostomy, length of hospital stay, postoperative analgesic days, time to diet resumption (3.9 versus 6.2 days) or complication rate. Although the time to resuming a solid diet was not different between the two groups (P = 0.053), bowel movement occurred faster in LR patients (LR versus OR, 1.8 versus 2.8 days, P = 0.020). Patients in the LR group also had less blood loss during surgery (114.1 versus 594.2 mL, P = 0.026). There were no mortalities in this study.

CONCLUSION

LR of Hartmann's procedure resulted in faster bowel function recovery than the open method. Laparoscopic approaches are feasible even for patients who received an open Hartmann's procedure.

Laparoscopic versus open Hartmann's reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hartmann's reversal is a major surgical procedure with consistent morbidity and mortality rates. Laparoscopy has been extensively applied to colorectal surgery providing significant benefits on short- and long-term outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of the current evidence comparing the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal (LHR) to open Hartmann's reversal (OHR).

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane database was performed. Comparative studies reporting short-term outcomes of LHR versus OHR with an intention-to-treat analysis were considered for eligibility. Primary outcome was 30-day morbidity. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, 30-day reoperations, length of hospital stay (LOS), operating time, and estimated blood loss.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies comparing 862 patients (403 LHR vs 459 OHR) were included. There was no difference in mortality, while LHR was associated with a reduced overall postoperative 30-day morbidity (OR, 0.24; 95 % CI, 0.16 to 0.34). Wound infections (OR, 0.54; 95 % CI, 0.35 to 0.85) and ileus (OR, 0.47; 95 % CI, 0.25 to 0.87) were more common after OHR. LOS was shorter in the laparoscopic group as it was the time to flatus. Meta-regression analysis showed that the results were independent from potential effect modifiers.

CONCLUSIONS

LHR has less short-term complications than OHR in terms of overall morbidity, wound infection, and postoperative ileus. LOS is shorter in the LHR group, while no significant difference exists in the operating time. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings on unbiased populations.