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

Integrated Laparoscopic Management of Parastomal and Midline Incisional Double Hernias: A Staged Approach Including Hartmann's Reversal and Hernia Repair

Parastomal hernia (PH) following Hartmann's procedure is a common late-term complication and is often combined with an incisional hernia (IH). The surgical treatment for double hernias with an end colostomy is complex and challenging. We present a 54-year-old woman with an end colostomy and combined hernias (PH and midline IH) after an emergency Hartmann's procedure for diverticular perforation of the sigmoid colon underwent staged surgery. First, laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal (LHR) and PH repair with primary suture were performed. Ten months later, "intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair (IPOM) plus" methods were implemented for IH repair. Both surgeries were successfully conducted using a laparoscopic approach, and no evidence of hernia recurrence has been observed in the 12 months after the second surgery. This case report provides valuable insights into the surgical strategy for double hernias with an end colostomy.

Laparoscopic versus open Hartmann reversal: a propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic Hartmann reversal (LHR) and open Hartmann reversal (OHR) in patients who had undergone Hartmann surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

The patients who underwent Hartmann reversal (HR) at the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University from Jun 2013 to Jun 2022 were retrospectively enrolled. The LHR group and the OHR group were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients who underwent Hartmann reversal (HR) were enrolled in this study. There were 48 (53.9%) patients in the LHR group and 41 (46.1%) patients in the OHR group. After 1:1 ratio PSM, no difference in baseline information remained (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in operation time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications (p > 0.05) before and after PSM. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, pre-operative albumin < 42.0 g/L was an independent risk factor (p = 0.013 < 0.05, OR = 0.248, 95% CI = 0.083-0.741) for the HR-related complications; however, LHR/OHR was not a predictive risk factor (p = 0.663, OR = 1.250, 95% CI = 0.500-3.122).

CONCLUSION

Based on the current evidence, although there was no difference in short-term prognosis, LHR still had some advantages considering that it was less invasive to the patient.

Laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal combined with interval lymphadenectomy after emergency surgery for perforated colon cancer: A case report

A 55-year-old man underwent Hartmann's procedure for generalized peritonitis caused by perforation of sigmoid colon cancer, which was histologically diagnosed as tubular adenocarcinoma penetrating the muscularis propria (T3). The extent of lymph node dissection was insufficient for the advanced cancer, according to the concept of complete mesocolic excision. Two months after surgery, he underwent laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal, combined with interval lymphadenectomy. En bloc resection of the colostomy, rectal stump and associated mesentery was performed with high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery. Subsequently, the intestinal continuity was restored by end-to-end anastomosis. The postoperative course was uneventful except for infection at the stoma site. No lymph node metastasis was found by histological examination of the resected specimen, with no evidence of cancer recurrence 8 months after the initial surgery.

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.

A comparative study between open versus laparoscopic Hartmann reversal: A single-center experience and analysis

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.

Successful reversal of ostomy 13 years after Hartmann procedure in a patient with colon cancer: A case report

BACKGROUND

The Hartmann procedure is currently recognized as a common, safe, and feasible surgical procedure. However, its reversal rate is low, and the optimal timing for Hartmann reversal surgery is controversial.

CASE SUMMARY

A 65-year-old man came to our hospital with a complaint of an intestinal fistula next to the stoma. The patient had undergone a Hartmann procedure 13 years prior. We performed colonoscopy, computed tomography, and other diagnostics before successfully reversing the stoma.

CONCLUSION

Although the optimal time for Hartmann procedure reversal is controversial, time may ultimately not be a factor in the success of reversal.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Hartmann Reversal: A Case-Control Study

Background

Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure (LHR) offers reduced morbidity compared with open Hartmann's reversal (OHR). The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of laparoscopic versus open Hartmann reversal.

Materials and Methods

Thirty-four patients who underwent Hartmann reversal between January 2017 and July 2019 were evaluated. Patients underwent either LHR (n = 17) or OHR (n = 17). Variables such as numbers of patients, patient's age, sex, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology) score, indication for previous open sigmoid resection, mean operation time, rate of conversion to open surgery, length of hospital stay, mortality, and morbidity were retrospectively evaluated.

Results

The two groups of patients were homogeneous for gender, age, body mass index, cause of primary surgery, time to reversal, and comorbidities. In 97% of the cases, HP was done by open surgery. Our data revealed no difference in mean operation time (LHR: 180.5 ± 35.1 vs. OHR: 225.2 ± 48.4) and morbidity rate, although, in OHR group, there were more severe complications. Less intraoperative blood loss (LHR: 100 ± 40 mL vs. OHR: 450 ± 125 mL; p value <0.001), shorter time to flatus (LHR: 2.4 days vs. OHR: 3.6 days; p value <0.021), and shorter hospitalization (LHR: 4.4 vs. OHR: 11.2 days; p value <0.001) were observed in the LHR group. Mortality rate was null in both groups. Discussion. LHR is feasible and safe even for patients who received a primary open Hartmann's procedure. We suggest careful patient's selection allowing LHR procedures to highly skilled laparoscopy surgeons.

Reversal of Hartmann's Procedure: Evaluating Outcomes of Single-Port Laparoscopic Approach Versus Conventional Approach

Bowel restoration following Hartmann's procedure (HP) remains a topic of discussion and innovation. This article seeks to highlight and analyze the outcomes of conventional reversal approaches such as open surgery (OS) and conventional laparoscopic (CL) to single-port laparoscopic reversal (SPLR) approach to evaluate whether SPLR is a feasible alternative to the OS or CL approach. A PubMed search using keywords yielded 5,750 articles. After applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 40 articles of relevance were reviewed, and endpoints considered. These included 13 systematic reviews and 27 observational reviews, three of which identified themselves as retrospective or comparative studies. The analysis showed overwhelming support for CL over OS as a choice for HP reversal. Studies comparing SPLR to CL showed SPLR to be a safe and feasible alternative, given its significantly shorter operating times, hospitalization times, and complication rates.

Trans-stomal single-port laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal is an efficacious and efficient procedure: a case-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Hartman's reversal remains challenging and is associated with a widely variable success rate. In a previous study, we reported that laparoscopy may lower the mortality and morbidity rates of the procedure. The aim of the current study was to assess the operative results of single-port laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal (SP-HR) as compared to the more standard, multi-port laparoscopic variant (MP-HR).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, non-randomized, case-controlled study of 44 consecutive patients who had SP-HR (Group A) compared to 44 patients who had MP-HR (Group B). The study was conducted in a high-volume colorectal unit in a 1200-bed university affiliated hospital, The Poissy-Saint Germain Medical Complex, France.

RESULTS

Preoperative patients' characteristics (sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, prior surgery, comorbidities, colonic disease) were comparable in both groups. The conversion rate was 13.6% and 4.5% in Group A and in Group B, respectively (p = 0.084) and consisted of placement of any additional ports. Conversion to open surgery did not occur in any patient in either group (p = 1). Mean operative time was shorter in Group A than in in Group B, (105 vs. 155 min; p = 0.0133). The mortality rate was 2.2% in Group A and 0% in Group B (p = 0.3145). The overall morbidity rate was 11.4% in Group A and 18.2% in Group B (p = 0.5344). The median length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in Group than in Group B (4.8 vs. 6.8 days; p = 0.0102).

CONCLUSIONS

The SP-HR technique was found to be safe and efficient. It compares favorably with MP-HR. Moreover, indirect cost savings could be induced by the reduction in the length of hospital stay.

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.