PURPOSE: This study compares open Hartmann's procedure reversal (OHPR) and laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure reversal (LHPR) in patients first treated for peritonitis (Henchey III or IV). METHODS: Fourteen patients who underwent LHPR during a 2-year period were compared with 20 patients who had previously undergone an open procedure at the same institution. RESULTS: Conversion rate was 14.28%. Operating time was shorter for the laparoscopic group [143 (90 to 240) vs. 180 (90 to 350) min, P<0.05]. Hospital length of stay was shorter for the laparoscopic group [9.5 (4 to 18) vs. 11 (6 to 39)]. Use of patient-controlled analgesia was not significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group [3 (0 to 4) vs. 3.5 (0 to 8)]. Morbidities observed in the LHPR group include a parietal abscess and an anastomotic stenosis without surgical treatment. The OHPR group had 6 complications: 1 anastomotic leak and 5 incisional hernias. CONCLUSIONS: LHPR with a conversion rate of 14.28% seems to be a method with shorter operating time and less morbidity compared with OHPR.
PURPOSE: This study compares open Hartmann's procedure reversal (OHPR) and laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure reversal (LHPR) in patients first treated for peritonitis (Henchey III or IV). METHODS: Fourteen patients who underwent LHPR during a 2-year period were compared with 20 patients who had previously undergone an open procedure at the same institution. RESULTS: Conversion rate was 14.28%. Operating time was shorter for the laparoscopic group [143 (90 to 240) vs. 180 (90 to 350) min, P<0.05]. Hospital length of stay was shorter for the laparoscopic group [9.5 (4 to 18) vs. 11 (6 to 39)]. Use of patient-controlled analgesia was not significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group [3 (0 to 4) vs. 3.5 (0 to 8)]. Morbidities observed in the LHPR group include a parietal abscess and an anastomotic stenosis without surgical treatment. The OHPR group had 6 complications: 1 anastomotic leak and 5 incisional hernias. CONCLUSIONS:LHPR with a conversion rate of 14.28% seems to be a method with shorter operating time and less morbidity compared with OHPR.
Authors: Stefan H E M Clermonts; Winanda M J de Ruijter; Yu-Ting T van Loon; Dareczka K Wasowicz; Joos Heisterkamp; John K Maring; David D E Zimmerman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Francesco Guerra; Diego Coletta; Celeste Del Basso; Giuseppe Giuliani; Alberto Patriti Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Bryan Joost Marinus van de Wall; Werner A Draaisma; Esther S Schouten; Ivo A M J Broeders; Esther C J Consten Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Emmanuel A Agaba; Raza M Zaidi; Peter Ramzy; Muhammad Aftab; Eugene Rubach; Gary Gecelter; Thanjur S Ravikumar; George DeNoto Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-03-05 Impact factor: 4.584