Surgical access through the stoma for laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann procedures

Considerations in Stoma Reversal

Temporary stomas are frequently used in the management of diverticulitis, colorectal cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease. These temporary stomas are used to try to mitigate septic complications from anastomotic leaks and to avoid the need for reoperation. Once acute medical conditions have improved and after the anastomosis has been proven to be healed, stomas can be reversed. Contrast enemas, digital rectal examination, and endoscopic evaluation are used to evaluate the anastomosis prior to reversal. Stoma reversal is associated with complications including anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, bowel obstruction, enterocutaneous fistula, and, most commonly, surgical site infection. Furthermore, many stomas, which were intended to be temporary, may not be reversed due to postoperative complications, adjuvant therapy, or prohibitive comorbidities.

Reversal of Hartmann's procedure utilizing single-port laparoscopy: an attractive alternative to laparotomy

BACKGROUND

Complications after restoration of intestinal continuity (RIC) following Hartmann's procedure occur frequently and are often serious. These complications result in a reported morbidity of 4-30 % and a reported mortality of 10-14 %. Reducing the amount of surgical trauma accompanying abdominal access seems an attractive tool to reduce perioperative morbidity. This possibility is offered by single-port Hartmann's reversal (SPHR) through the colostomy site.

METHODS

The purpose of the present prospective study was to compare outcome of SPHR to a retrospectively collected historical control group of conventional open Hartmann's reversal (OHR). All patients undergoing RIC between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2014, were included in the present study. Operation time, morbidity and hospital stay were assessed. Postoperative surgical results of SPHR and OHR were the main outcome of the study.

RESULTS

During the study period, 41 patients (M/F = 23:18; median age 58 (26-85) years) were included in the present study. Sixteen patients underwent OHR; 25 patients underwent SPHR. No mortality was observed in the present series. Median operation time was similar between groups [184 (29-377) vs. 153.5 (73-332) min]. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SPHR group [16 (4-74) vs. 4 (1-34) days, p < 0.05]. The number of complications was significantly lower in the SPHR group (33 vs. 10, p < 0.05); furthermore, significantly less patients had severe complications (Clavien-Dindo III or higher) in the SPHR group (7/33 vs. 1/10). Less wound-related complications occurred in the SPHR group (12 vs. 5, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study confirms recent findings in the literature regarding the safety and feasibility of SPHR. SPHR seems to be an attractive alternative to OHR.

Efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted approach for reversal of Hartmann's procedure: results from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database

INTRODUCTION

Morbidity after reversal of Hartmann's procedure remains high. The laparoscopic approach (LAP) may be associated with lower morbidity versus open Hartmann's closure. This study's aim is to compare results after LAP and OPEN colostomy takedown and Hartmann's reversal.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried from 2005 to 2012 for CPT procedure codes 44227 (LAP) and 44626 (OPEN). Exclusion criteria included: ventilator dependence, ASA class 4 or 5, SIRS, sepsis, emergency case, and advanced malignancy. Demographic parameters were assessed as well as comorbidities and short-term outcomes. Statistical methods used include Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Student's t test for continuous variables.

RESULTS

In total, 4,148 patients underwent stoma closure and Hartmann's reversal (LAP 732 [17.6 %], OPEN 3,416 [82.3 %]). The mean BMI was lower in the LAP (mean ± SD 27.6 ± 6.6) versus OPEN group (28.3 ± 6.8, p = 0.012). The groups were similar as regards comorbidities except for dyspnea (LAP 5.6 %, OPEN 7.8 %, p = 0.043). The mean surgery times were similar and the median LOS shorter in the LAP versus OPEN groups (5 vs 6 days, p < 0.0001). A lower overall morbidity rate was noted for the LAP group (18.4 % vs OPEN 27 %, p < 0.0001) but mortality was statistically similar. Lower rates were noted in the LAP group for the following complications: incisional SSI (10.4 vs 14.1 %, p = 0.033), organ space SSI (3.1 vs 5.0 %, p = 0.033), UTI (1.6 vs 3.3 %, p = 0.005), sepsis (3.4 vs 6.0 %, p = 0.038), and reoperation (3.1 vs 5.4 %, p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

Only 18 % of Hartmann's reversal's were done using LAP methods. The LAP and OPEN groups were similar except for gender, BMI, and dyspnea history. LAP methods were associated with a 1 day LOS benefit and significantly lower overall morbidity and lower rates of incisional and deep SSI, UTI, sepsis, and reoperations. Operative length was similar. The short-term results of the LAP approach are superior to the OPEN results.