BACKGROUND: Restoration of intestinal continuity after Hartmann's procedure has traditionally required laparotomy. This study compares our experience with laparoscopic and open reversal of Hartmann's procedure. STUDY DESIGN: All laparoscopic and open Hartmann's reversal procedures performed between January 1998 and June 2006 were reviewed. Patients with laparoscopic reversal were retrospectively matched by age, body mass index (BMI), and indication to controls with open reversal. Demographic data, perioperative course, and postoperative complications were documented. RESULTS: We identified 41 patients who underwent laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure and these were matched to 41 patients with open reversal. The groups had similar average age and BMI. The predominant indication for surgery in both groups was diverticular disease. Conversion to laparotomy occurred in eight patients (19.5%), and was due to dense adhesions or difficulty in identification of the rectal stump. Adhesions were significantly greater in the conversion group (p <0.05), and the rectal stump was not marked in any of these cases. The most common short-term complications were ileus and surgical site infection. There were no anastomotic leaks and no mortalities. The mean operative times in the laparoscopic and open groups were 193 versus 209 min, respectively (p = 0.33). The laparoscopic group had a significantly lower estimated blood loss of 166 versus 326 mL (p < 0.0005), shorter time to bowel function return (4.1 versus 5.2 days, p < 0.05), and a shorter hospital stay (6.4 versus 8.0 days, p < 0.05). The major complication rate was also significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (4.8% versus 12.1%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure is a safe and practical alternative to open reversal. It can be performed with similar operative time, fewer complications, and a faster recovery time. Conversion during the reversal procedure was significantly impacted by severity of adhesions and marking of the rectal stump.
BACKGROUND: Restoration of intestinal continuity after Hartmann's procedure has traditionally required laparotomy. This study compares our experience with laparoscopic and open reversal of Hartmann's procedure. STUDY DESIGN: All laparoscopic and open Hartmann's reversal procedures performed between January 1998 and June 2006 were reviewed. Patients with laparoscopic reversal were retrospectively matched by age, body mass index (BMI), and indication to controls with open reversal. Demographic data, perioperative course, and postoperative complications were documented. RESULTS: We identified 41 patients who underwent laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure and these were matched to 41 patients with open reversal. The groups had similar average age and BMI. The predominant indication for surgery in both groups was diverticular disease. Conversion to laparotomy occurred in eight patients (19.5%), and was due to dense adhesions or difficulty in identification of the rectal stump. Adhesions were significantly greater in the conversion group (p <0.05), and the rectal stump was not marked in any of these cases. The most common short-term complications were ileus and surgical site infection. There were no anastomotic leaks and no mortalities. The mean operative times in the laparoscopic and open groups were 193 versus 209 min, respectively (p = 0.33). The laparoscopic group had a significantly lower estimated blood loss of 166 versus 326 mL (p < 0.0005), shorter time to bowel function return (4.1 versus 5.2 days, p < 0.05), and a shorter hospital stay (6.4 versus 8.0 days, p < 0.05). The major complication rate was also significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (4.8% versus 12.1%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure is a safe and practical alternative to open reversal. It can be performed with similar operative time, fewer complications, and a faster recovery time. Conversion during the reversal procedure was significantly impacted by severity of adhesions and marking of the rectal stump.
Authors: Jeanine Arkenbosch; Hiromichi Miyagaki; H M C Shantha Kumara; Xiaohong Yan; Vesna Cekic; Richard L Whelan Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 4.584
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: A Mariani; D Moszkowicz; C Trésallet; F Koskas; L Chiche; R Lupinacci; F Menegaux Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 3.781
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