Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery

, Volume 396, Issue 7, pp 989–996 | Cite as

Restoration of intestinal continuity after Hartmann's procedure—not a benign operation. Are there predictors for morbidity?

  • Dalibor Antolovic
  • Christoph Reissfelder
  • Timur Özkan
  • Luis Galindo
  • Markus W. Büchler
  • Moritz Koch
  • Jürgen Weitz
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Restoration of intestinal continuity is usually the second step after Hartmann's procedure and an established procedure in abdominal surgery, particularly for complicated diverticular disease. This descriptive study aimed to examine the morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure and to define potential risk factors.

Patients and methods

Data from 161 consecutive patients (median age 62 years, median BMI 25.2) undergoing elective surgery with restoration of bowel continuity between October 2001 and November 2008 at the Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, were included in this study. The association of potential prognostic variables with postoperative morbidity and mortality were examined by univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

The median time between the initial operation and the restoration of bowel continuity was 7 months. The median operation time was 185 min with a blood loss of 150 ml and median postoperative hospital stay of 9 days. Fifty-one percent of the patients had an uneventful recovery, whereas 49% had a postoperative complication. Surgical infections occurred in 18% of patients, 3.8% suffered from anastomotic leakage, and surgical re-exploration was necessary in 11.2%. Medical complications occurred in 21.1% of the patients, with pneumonia in 2.5% and urinary tract infections in 1.3%. One patient died 17 days after surgery. Univariate analysis showed that patients taking immunosuppressant drugs had significantly more wound infections and, interestingly, protective ileostomy was associated with postoperative anastomotic stenosis in our cohort. The administration of PRBC and a prolonged hospital were significantly associated with increased postoperative morbidity in the multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

Restoration of bowel continuity is a surgical procedure with high overall morbidity. The high morbidity confirmed in our study and various other papers justify a randomized clinical study to investigate the one-stage concept with primary anastomosis against the Hartmann's procedure and its reversal.

Keywords

Restoration of bowel continuity Risk factors Surgical complications Mortality 

References

  1. 1.
    Jun S, Stollman N (2002) Epidemiology of diverticular disease. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 16:529–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parks TG (1975) Natural history of diverticular disease of the colon. Clin Gastroenterol 4:53–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Constantinides VA, Tekkis PP, Athanasiou T et al (2006) Primary resection with anastomosis vs. Hartmann's procedure in nonelective surgery for acute colonic diverticulitis: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 49:966–981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gonzalez R, Smith CD, Mattar SG et al (2004) Laparoscopic vs. open resection for the treatment of diverticular disease. Surg Endosc 18:276–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kohler L (1999) Endoscopic surgery: what has passed the test? World J Surg 23:816–824PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reissfelder C, Buhr HJ, Ritz JP (2006) What is the optimal time of surgical intervention after an acute attack of sigmoid diverticulitis: early or late elective laparoscopic resection? Dis Colon Rectum 49:1842–1848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reissfelder C, Buhr HJ, Ritz JP (2006) Can laparoscopically assisted sigmoid resection provide uncomplicated management even in cases of complicated diverticulitis? Surg Endosc 20:1055–1059PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schilling MK, Maurer CA, Kollmar O et al (2001) Primary vs. secondary anastomosis after sigmoid colon resection for perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey Stage III and IV): a prospective outcome and cost analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 44:699–705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Standards Task Force, The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (2000) Practice parameters for the treatment of sigmoid diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum 43:289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Banerjee S, Leather AJ, Rennie JA et al (2005) Feasibility and morbidity of reversal of Hartmann's. Colorectal Dis 7:454–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maggard MA, Zingmond D, O'Connell JB et al (2004) What proportion of patients with an ostomy (for diverticulitis) get reversed? Am Surg 70:928–931PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roque-Castellano C, Marchena-Gomez J, Hemmersbach-Miller M et al (2007) Analysis of the factors related to the decision of restoring intestinal continuity after Hartmann's procedure. Int J Colorectal Dis 22:1091–1096PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salem L, Flum DR (2004) Primary anastomosis or Hartmann's procedure for patients with diverticular peritonitis? A systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1953–1964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vermeulen J, Coene PP, Van Hout NM et al (2009) Restoration of bowel continuity after surgery for acute perforated diverticulitis: should Hartmann's procedure be considered a one-stage procedure? Colorectal Dis 11:619–624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deans GT, Krukowski ZH, Irwin ST (1994) Malignant obstruction of the left colon. Br J Surg 81:1270–1276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zeitoun G, Laurent A, Rouffet F et al (2000) Multicentre, randomized clinical trial of primary versus secondary sigmoid resection in generalized peritonitis complicating sigmoid diverticulitis. Br J Surg 87:1366–1374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Constantinides VA, Heriot A, Remzi F et al (2007) Operative strategies for diverticular peritonitis: a decision analysis between primary resection and anastomosis versus Hartmann's procedures. Ann Surg 245:94–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aydin HN, Remzi FH, Tekkis PP et al (2005) Hartmann's reversal is associated with high postoperative adverse events. Dis Colon Rectum 48:2117–2126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seah DW, Ibrahim S, Tay KH (2005) Hartmann procedure: is it still relevant today? ANZ J Surg 75:436–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boland E, Hsu A, Brand MI et al (2007) Hartmann's colostomy reversal: outcome of patients undergoing surgery with the intention of eliminating fecal diversion. Am Surg 73:664–668PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keck JO, Collopy BT, Ryan PJ et al (1994) Reversal of Hartmann's procedure: effect of timing and technique on ease and safety. Dis Colon Rectum 37:243–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oomen JL, Cuesta MA, Engel AF (2005) Reversal of Hartmann's procedure after surgery for complications of diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon is safe and possible in most patients. Dig Surg 22:419–425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pearce NW, Scott SD, Karran SJ (1992) Timing and method of reversal of Hartmann's procedure. Br J Surg 79:839–841PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Williams JG (2005) Hartmann's operation—still relevant in the 21st century? Dig Surg 22:399–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Houbiers JG, van de Velde CJ, van de Watering LM et al (1997) Transfusion of red cells is associated with increased incidence of bacterial infection after colorectal surgery: a prospective study. Transfusion 37:126–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sitges-Serra A, Insenser JJ, Membrilla E (2006) Blood transfusions and postoperative infections in patients undergoing elective surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 7(Suppl 2):S33–S35Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Torchia MG, Danzinger RG (2000) Peri-operative blood transfusion and albumin administration are independent risk factors for the development of postoperative infections after colorectal surgery. Can J Surg 43:212–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Banbury MK, Brizzio ME, Rajeswaran J et al (2006) Transfusion increases the risk of postoperative infection after cardiovascular surgery. J Am Coll Surg 202:131–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Carson JL, Altman DG, Duff A et al (1999) Risk of bacterial infection associated with allogeneic blood transfusion among patients undergoing hip fracture repair. Transfusion 39:694–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Antolovic D, Reissfelder C, Koch M et al (2009) Surgical treatment of sigmoid diverticulitis—analysis of predictive risk factors for postoperative infections, surgical complications, and mortality. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:577–584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dalibor Antolovic
    • 1
  • Christoph Reissfelder
    • 1
  • Timur Özkan
    • 1
  • Luis Galindo
    • 1
  • Markus W. Büchler
    • 1
  • Moritz Koch
    • 1
  • Jürgen Weitz
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation SurgeryUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations