Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure: A single-center experience

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.

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.

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.