Laparoscopic versus open reversal of a Hartmann procedure: a single-center study

Single-port laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure through the colostomy site: technical aspects and early postoperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

Single-port laparoscopic surgical approaches offer improved cosmetic outcomes and enhance recovery following surgery. The purpose of the study was to assess the reliability and efficacy of a single-port laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal(SPL-HR) through the colostomy site.

METHODS

Prospective data from consecutive patients who underwent SPL-HR between 2020 and 2024 was analysed. Once the colostomy was detached from abdominal wall, a single-port device was introduced through the colostomy site. After mobilizing the rectal stump and afferent colon, colorectal anastomosis was carried out using a circular stapler transanally under laparoscopic vision. Postoperative care and discharge decisions were made following the ERAS protocol. Patient demographics, details of Hartmann's procedure, intraoperative outcomes, and early postoperative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

SPL-HR was successfully performed in 23 of 27 patients (85.1%), with a median operation time of 92 (50-172) min and a median blood loss of 100 (10-360) mL. Five patients (21.7%) experienced a postoperative complication. Two of them experienced grade 3a complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification: one with an intraabdominal abscess and one with a hematoma at the colostomy site, both requiring drainage under local anaesthesia. Anastomotic leak or mortality wasn't observed in patients. Functional recovery measures such as first flatus time and time to resuming a soft diet were favourable, with a median length of hospital stay of 4 (2-9) days.

CONCLUSION

The SPL-HR technique is a reliable and efficient method that is easy to perform. It has acceptable complication rates while improving postoperative recovery and reducing the length of hospital stay.

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.

Hartmann's Reversal: A Single-Centre Experience

A proctosigmoidectomy, commonly called Hartmann's procedure (HP), is the surgical resection of the rectosigmoid colon with the closure of the anorectal stump and creation of an artificial stomal opening (ostomy) on the abdomen (colostomy). It is generally performed with the intention of reversal once the underlying cause is treated. The aim of this study is to assess the predictive factors and intra-operative difficulties that might influence the decision to indicate or contra-indicate stomal reversal after HP. Patients who underwent HP between January 2010 and December 2017 were retrospectively evaluated in a single institution. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were analysed for patients who underwent HP for benign as well as malignant conditions. The reversal rate was comparable with the proportion of benign cases, consistent with published evidence that reversal rates for diverticular disease are higher as compared to colorectal cancer. Disease progression/metastasis, advanced age, multiple co-morbidities, and procedure abandonment (frozen pelvis /leak) were the most common contra-indications for reversal.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Reversal of Hartmann's Procedure: A Single Centre Experience

Introduction

Hartmann’s procedure is widely performed to fix colonic obstruction and perforation. It should ideally be followed by a reversal to restore bowel continuity. Reversal of Hartmann’s procedure was traditionally performed using an open technique. However, in recent days, the use of a laparoscopic approach has become increasingly popular. In our retrospective observational study, we aim to investigate the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open reversal of Hartmann’s procedure in a UK tertiary centre.

Methods

All patients who underwent reversal of their Hartmann’s procedure between January 2017 and December 2019 were included in the study. Data including demographics, days between primary operation and reversal, laparoscopic or open reversal, length of hospital stay following reversal procedure, 30-day readmission, mortality, and complication rate were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using t-test and chi-squared test.

Results

Forty-nine patients underwent reversal of Hartmann’s procedure from January 2017 to December 2019. The mean age of our cohort was 59.6 ± 13.2 years. There was no significant difference in baseline demographics of both groups, apart from the number of days between the primary operation and reversal procedure. There was also no statistical difference in length of stay, 30-day readmission, and mortality between laparoscopic and open reversal techniques. However, there was a higher incidence of wound complications in patients who underwent open reversal of Hartmann’s procedure.

Conclusion

The reversal of Hartmann’s procedure is a challenging operation. We found no significant difference between both open and laparoscopic approaches, but our study might be confounded by various factors including small sample size and selection bias. A larger, randomised study with greater statistical power is needed to confirm our findings.

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.

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.

Hartmann's reversal after colonic perforation or anastomosis leakage, is it the same procedure? A retrospective study of 150 patients

PURPOSE

The high morbidity rates reported might influence surgeons' decisions of whether to perform Hartmann's reversal (HR). Our aim was to report the results of HR after "primary" Hartmann's procedure (HP) or in redo surgery for failed anastomosis.

METHODS

All patients operated between 2007 and 2015 were included. Data and postoperative course were obtained from a review of medical records and databases.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty patients (age 60, range (20-91) years, 62% male) were included. Eighty-six patients (57%) were ASA ≥ 2. HP was mostly performed for diverticulitis (29.3%) and anastomotic leakage (24%). HR was possible in 145(97%) patients including six with previous failed attempt. Overall morbidity was 22.7% including 11.7% severe complications (Dindo 3-4). Operative blood loss and Charlson comorbidity index were the only significant risk factor for postoperative pelvic complications (p = 0.03; p = 0.0002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In a colorectal tertiary center, HR was feasible in 97% with a low morbidity and a 3.4% anastomotic leakage rate.

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.

Retrospective Evaluation of Laparoscopic Versus Open Hartmann's Reversal: A Single-Institution Experience

PURPOSE

Restoration of intestinal continuity after Hartmann's procedure has significant associated morbidity. There has been a trend toward increasing utilization of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery, with improvements in short-term outcomes. This study evaluates our experience with laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure reversal.

METHODS

All patients who underwent laparoscopic and open reversal of Hartmann's procedure between 2007 and 2010 were reviewed. Demographics, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, and mortality were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients underwent laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal and 62 underwent open reversal. There were no statistically significant differences in demographics, comorbidities, mean operative times, blood loss, reoperation, and readmission rates between the groups. The laparoscopic group had a shorter length of hospitalization (5.7 vs. 7.9 d, P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's pouch is a safe and feasible alternative to the open reversal technique. Patients who undergo the laparoscopic technique have a shorter length of hospital stay.

Achieving a 5-star rating: Analysis of Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) scores among patients undergoing elective colorectal operations

BACKGROUND

Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) is a publicly reported survey of patients' hospital experience.

METHODS

All inpatient, elective colorectal resections with completed HCAHPS surveys at a single institution between June 2012 and April 2015 were identified. HCAHPS measures were analyzed according to published methodologies. Univariate logistic regression evaluated associations of various HCAHPS measures with age, sex, ostomy, approach, diagnosis, and prolonged length of stay (PLOS; ≥7 days). Key driver analysis demonstrated associations between the individual HCAHPS measures and the global hospital rating measure.

RESULTS

We identified 755 patients. Younger age, inflammatory bowel disease, open approach, ostomy construction, and PLOS were associated with low quality of pain management. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease, open approach, and PLOS had a low overall star score (all P < .05). Care transitions and communication about medications received low scores but were associated highly with the global hospital rating measure.

CONCLUSION

Efforts aimed at improving pain management among patients with colorectal resection should focus on patients with inflammatory bowel disease, open operations, ostomies, and PLOS. Improving care transitions and communication about medications are important targets for improvement to increase the overall hospital score. Considering the importance of improving patient-centered outcomes, we suggest that all institutions utilize their existing HCAHPS data in this manner.

Laparoscopic treatment of complicated colonic diverticular disease: A review

Up to 10% of acute colonic diverticulitis may necessitate a surgical intervention. Although associated with high morbidity and mortality rates, Hartmann’s procedure (HP) has been considered for many years to be the gold standard for the treatment of generalized peritonitis. To reduce the burden of surgery in these situations and as driven by the accumulated experience in colorectal and minimally-invasive surgery, laparoscopy has been increasingly adopted in the management of abdominal emergencies. Multiple case series and retrospective comparative studies confirmed that with experienced hands, the laparoscopic approach provided better outcomes than the open surgery. This technique applies to all interventions related to complicated diverticular disease, such as HP, sigmoid resection with primary anastomosis (RPA) and reversal of HP. The laparoscopic approach also provided new therapeutic possibilities with the emergence of the laparoscopic lavage drainage (LLD), particularly interesting in the context of purulent peritonitis of diverticular origin. At this stage, however, most of our knowledge in these fields relies on studies of low-level evidence. More than ever, well-built large randomized controlled trials are necessary to answer present interrogations such as the exact place of LLD or the most appropriate sigmoid resection procedure (laparoscopic HP or RPA), as well as to confirm the advantages of laparoscopy in chronic complications of diverticulitis or HP reversal.

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.