Laparoscopic and open reversal of Hartmann’s procedure—a comparative retrospective analysis
- First Online:
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.
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.
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).
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.
Key wordsHartmann’s procedure Reversal Laparoscopy Colostomy closure
body mass index
laparoscopic-assisted Hartmann’s reversal
open Hartmann’s reversal
surgical intensive care unit
- 1.Hartmann H (1923) Note sur un procédé nouveau d'extirpation des cancers de la partie du côlon. Bull Mem Soc Chir Paris 49:1474–1477Google Scholar
- 10.Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, Muller JM (2005) Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD003145Google Scholar
- 24.Vacher C, Zaghloul R, Borie F, Laporte S, Callafe R, Skawinski P, Leynau G, Domergue J (2002) Laparoscopic re-establishment of digestive continuity following Hartmann’s procedure. Retrospective study of the French Society of Endoscopic Surgery] Ann Chir 127:189–192Google Scholar
- 26.Beck DE, Cohen Z, Fleshman JW, Kaufman HS, van Goor H, Wolff BG (2003) Adhesion Study Group Steering Committee. A prospective, randomized, multicenter, controlled study of the safety of Seprafilm adhesion barrier in abdominopelvic surgery of the intestine. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1310–1319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Fazio VW, Cohen Z, Fleshman JW, van Goor H, Bauer JJ, Wolff BG, Corman M, Beart RW Jr, Wexner SD, Becker JM, Monson JR, Kaufman HS, Beck DE, Bailey HR, Ludwig KA, Stamos MJ, Darzi A, Bleday R, Dorazio R, Madoff RD, Smith LE, Gearhart S, Lillemoe K, Gohl J (2006) Reduction in adhesive small-bowel obstruction by Seprafilm adhesion barrier after intestinal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar