Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic versus open Hartmann’s reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Hartmann’s reversal is a major surgical procedure with consistent morbidity and mortality rates. Laparoscopy has been extensively applied to colorectal surgery providing significant benefits on short- and long-term outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of the current evidence comparing the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic Hartmann’s reversal (LHR) to open Hartmann’s reversal (OHR).

Methods

A systematic search of Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane database was performed. Comparative studies reporting short-term outcomes of LHR versus OHR with an intention-to-treat analysis were considered for eligibility. Primary outcome was 30-day morbidity. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, 30-day reoperations, length of hospital stay (LOS), operating time, and estimated blood loss.

Results

Thirteen studies comparing 862 patients (403 LHR vs 459 OHR) were included. There was no difference in mortality, while LHR was associated with a reduced overall postoperative 30-day morbidity (OR, 0.24; 95 % CI, 0.16 to 0.34). Wound infections (OR, 0.54; 95 % CI, 0.35 to 0.85) and ileus (OR, 0.47; 95 % CI, 0.25 to 0.87) were more common after OHR. LOS was shorter in the laparoscopic group as it was the time to flatus. Meta-regression analysis showed that the results were independent from potential effect modifiers.

Conclusions

LHR has less short-term complications than OHR in terms of overall morbidity, wound infection, and postoperative ileus. LOS is shorter in the LHR group, while no significant difference exists in the operating time. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings on unbiased populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hartmann H (1921) New procedure for the removal of cancers of the terminal part of the pelvic colon. Secretariat of the Association, Paris, pp 411–413

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gooszen AW, Tollenaar RA, Geelkerken RH et al (2001) Prospective study of primary anastomosis following sigmoid resection for suspected acute complicated diverticular disease. Br J Surg 88(5):693–697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Farthmann EH, Ruckauer KD, Haring RU (2000) Evidence-based surgery: diverticulitis—a surgical disease? Langenbecks Arch Surg 385(2):143–151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Desai DC, Brennan EJJ, Reilly JF et al (1998) The utility of the Hartmann procedure. Am J Surg 175(2):152–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vermeulen J, Gosselink MP, Busschbach JJ et al (2010) Avoiding or reversing Hartmann’s procedure provides improved quality of life after perforated diverticulitis. J Gastrointest Surg 14:651–657

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Banerjee S, Leather AJ, Rennie JA et al (2005) Feasibility and morbidity of reversal of Hartmann’s. Color Dis 7:454–459

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. van de Wall BJ, Draaisma WA, Schouten ES et al (2010) Conventional and laparoscopic reversal of the Hartmann procedure: a review of literature. J Gastrointest Surg 14(4):743–752

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Antolovic D, Reissfelder C, Ozkan T et al (2011) Restoration of intestinal continuity after Hartmann’s procedure—not a benign operation. Are there predictors for morbidity? Langenbecks Arch Surg 396(7):989–996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Maggard MA, Zingmond D, O’Connell JB et al (2004) What proportion of patients with an ostomy (for diverticulitis) get reversed? Am Surg 70:928–931

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wigmore SJ, Duthie GS, Young IE et al (1995) Restoration of intestinal continuity following Hartmann’s procedure: the Lothian experience 1987–1992. Br J Surg 82:27–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pearce NW, Scott SD, Karran SJ (1992) Timing and method of reversal of Hartmann’s procedure. Br J Surg 79:839–841

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Braga M, Vignali A, Zuliani W et al (2005) Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: cost-benefit analysis in a single-center randomized trial. Ann Surg 242(6):890–895, discussion 895-6

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Franklin ME Jr, Rosenthal D, Abrego-Medina D et al (1996) Prospective comparison of open vs. laparoscopic colon surgery for carcinoma. Five-year results. Dis Colon Rectum 39(10 Suppl):S35–S46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gorey TF, O’Connell PR, Waldron D et al (1993) Laparoscopically assisted reversal of Hartmann’s procedure. Br J Surg 80:109

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283(15):2008–2012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R et al (2003) Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group; European Carotid Surgery Trial Collaborative Group. Health Technol Assess 7(27):iii–x, 1-173

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Furukawa TA, Barbui C, Cipriani A et al (2006) Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate results. J Clin Epidemiol 59(1):7–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Friedrich JO, Adhikari NK, Beyene J (2007) Inclusion of zero total event trials in meta-analyses maintains analytic consistency and incorporates all available data. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:5

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ (1999) Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med 18(20):2693–2708

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR et al (2006) Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA 295(6):676–680

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA (2006) A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 25(20):3443–3457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schmelzer T, Mostafa G, Norton J et al (2007) Reversal of Hartmann’s procedure: a high risk operation? Surgery 142:598–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Carcoforo P, Navarra G, Di Marco L et al (1997) Reversal of Hartmann’s procedure. Our experience. Ann Ital Chir 68:523–527

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Regadas FS, Siebra JA, Rodrigues LV et al (1996) Laparoscopically assisted colorectal anastomose post-Hartmann’s procedure. Surg Laparosc Endosc 6(1):1–4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Achkasov S, Vorobiev G, Zhuchenko A et al (2010) Laparoscopic-assisted reversal of Hartmann’s procedure. Acta Chir Iugosl 57(3):59–65

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chouillard E, Pierard T, Campbell R et al (2009) Laparoscopically assisted Hartman’s reversal is an efficacious and efficient procedure: a case control study. Minerva Chir 64(1):1–8

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. De’angelis N, Brunetti F, Memeo R et al (2013) Comparison between open and laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann’s procedure for diverticulitis. World J Gastrointest Surg 5(8):245–251

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Faure JP, Doucet C, Essique D et al (2007) Comparison of conventional and laparoscopic Hartmann’s procedure reversal. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17(6):495–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Maitra RK, Pinkney TD, Mohiuddin MK et al (2013) Should laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann’s procedure be the first line approach in all patients? Int J Surg 11(9):971–976

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mazeh H, Greenstein AJ, Swedish K et al (2009) Laparoscopic and open reversal of Hartmann’s procedure—a comparative retrospective analysis. Surg Endosc 23(3):496–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ng DC, Guarino S, Yau SL et al (2013) Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann’s procedure: safety and feasibility. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 1(2):149–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rosen MJ, Cobb WS, Kercher KW et al (2006) Laparoscopic versus open colostomy reversal: a comparative analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 10(6):895–900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Studer P, Schnüriger B, Umer M et al (2014) Laparoscopic versus open end colostomy closure: a single-center experience. Am Surg 80(4):361–365

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Svenningsen PO, Bulut O, Jess P et al (2010) Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann’s procedure. Dan Med Bull 57(6):A4149

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Walklett CL, Yeomans NP (2014) A retrospective case note review of laparoscopic versus open reversal of Hartmann’s procedure. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 96(7):539–542

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Yang PF, Morgan MJ (2014) Laparoscopic versus open reversal of Hartmann’s procedure: a retrospective review. ANZ J Surg 84(12):965–969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zimmermann M, Hoffmann M, Laubert T et al (2014) Laparoscopic versus open reversal of a Hartmann procedure: a single-center study. World J Surg 38(8):2145–2152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Poon JT, Law WL, Wong IW et al (2009) Impact of laparoscopic colorectal resection on surgical site infection. Ann Surg 249(1):77–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H et al (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365(9472):1718–1726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Weeks JC, Nelson H, Gelber S et al (2002) Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 287(3):321–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Jamali R, Soweid A, Dimassi H et al (2008) Evaluating the degree of difficulty of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Arch Surg 143(8):762–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Arkenbosch J, Miyagaki H, Shantha Kumara HM et al (2014) 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. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3926-7

  45. Albrecht R, Bochmann C (2011) Sind eine laparoskopische Diskontinuitätsresektion und eine spätere laparoskopische Rekonstruktion bei der komplizierten Sigmadivertikulitis möglich? Zentralbl Chir 136(1):61–65

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Haughn C, Ju B, Uchal M et al (2008) Complication rates after Hartmann’s reversal: open vs. laparoscopic approach. Dis Colon Rectum 51(8):1232–1236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Siddiqui M, Sajid M, Baig M (2010) Open versus laparoscopic approach for reversal of Hartmann’s procedure: a systematic review. Color Dis 12(8):733–741

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Roig JV, Cantos M, Balciscueta Z et al (2011) Hartmann’s operation: how often is it reversed and at what cost? A multicentre study. Color Dis 13(12):e396–e402

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they do not have competing interests.

Funding

No fundings have been received for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General, Oncologic and Video-Assisted Surgery, Colorectal Unit, Federico II University, Naples, Italy

    Valerio Celentano, Mariano Cesare Giglio & Luigi Bucci

Authors
  1. Valerio Celentano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mariano Cesare Giglio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luigi Bucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valerio Celentano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Celentano, V., Giglio, M.C. & Bucci, L. Laparoscopic versus open Hartmann’s reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 30, 1603–1615 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-015-2325-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-015-2325-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation