Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reversal of Hartmann’s procedure utilizing single-port laparoscopy: an attractive alternative to laparotomy

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Complications after restoration of intestinal continuity (RIC) following Hartmann’s procedure occur frequently and are often serious. These complications result in a reported morbidity of 4–30 % and a reported mortality of 10–14 %. Reducing the amount of surgical trauma accompanying abdominal access seems an attractive tool to reduce perioperative morbidity. This possibility is offered by single-port Hartmann’s reversal (SPHR) through the colostomy site.

Methods

The purpose of the present prospective study was to compare outcome of SPHR to a retrospectively collected historical control group of conventional open Hartmann’s reversal (OHR). All patients undergoing RIC between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2014, were included in the present study. Operation time, morbidity and hospital stay were assessed. Postoperative surgical results of SPHR and OHR were the main outcome of the study.

Results

During the study period, 41 patients (M/F = 23:18; median age 58 (26–85) years) were included in the present study. Sixteen patients underwent OHR; 25 patients underwent SPHR. No mortality was observed in the present series. Median operation time was similar between groups [184 (29–377) vs. 153.5 (73–332) min]. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SPHR group [16 (4–74) vs. 4 (1–34) days, p < 0.05]. The number of complications was significantly lower in the SPHR group (33 vs. 10, p < 0.05); furthermore, significantly less patients had severe complications (Clavien–Dindo III or higher) in the SPHR group (7/33 vs. 1/10). Less wound-related complications occurred in the SPHR group (12 vs. 5, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

This study confirms recent findings in the literature regarding the safety and feasibility of SPHR. SPHR seems to be an attractive alternative to OHR.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hartmann H (1923) Note sur un procede nouveau d’extripation des cancers de la partie terminale du colon. Bulletin et Memoires de la Societe Chirurgique de Paris 1923(00):1474–1477

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hartmann H (1921) Nouveau procede d’ablation des cancers de la partie terminale du colon pelvien. Strasbourg, Trentienne Congres de Chirurgie, pp 411–413

    Google Scholar 

  3. Vermeulen J, Gosselink MP, Busschbach JJ, Lange JF (2010) Avoiding or reversing Hartmann’s procedure provides improved quality of life after perforated diverticulitis. J Gastrointest Surg 14(4):651–657

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Leroy J, Cahill RA, Asakuma M, Dallemagne B, Marescaux J (2009) Single-access laparoscopic sigmoidectomy as definitive surgical management of prior diverticulitis in a human patient. Arch Surg 144(2):173–179 (discussion 9)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nugent KP, Daniels P, Stewart B, Patankar R, Johnson CD (1999) Quality of life in stoma patients. Dis Colon Rectum 42(12):1569–1574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mols F, Lemmens V, Bosscha K, van den Broek W, Thong MS (2014) Living with the physical and mental consequences of an ostomy: a study among 1–10-year rectal cancer survivors from the population-based PROFILES registry. Psycho-oncology

  7. Pearce NW, Scott SD, Karran SJ (1992) Timing and method of reversal of Hartmann’s procedure. Br J Surg 79(8):839–841

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wigmore SJ, Duthie GS, Young IE, Spalding EM, Rainey JB (1995) Restoration of intestinal continuity following Hartmann’s procedure: the Lothian experience 1987–1992. Br J Surg 82(1):27–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Albarran SA, Simoens C, Van De Winkel N, da Costa PM, Thill V (2009) Restoration of digestive continuity after Hartmann’s procedure: ASA score is a predictive factor for risk of postoperative complications. Acta Chir Belg 109(6):714–719

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Banerjee S, Leather AJ, Rennie JA, Samano N, Gonzalez JG, Papagrigoriadis S (2005) Feasibility and morbidity of reversal of Hartmann’s. Colorect Dis 7(5):454–459

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Maggard MA, Zingmond D, O’Connell JB, Ko CY (2004) What proportion of patients with an ostomy (for diverticulitis) get reversed? Am Surg 70(10):928–931

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vermeulen J, Vrijland W, Mannaerts GH (2008) Reversal of Hartmann’s procedure through the stomal side: a new even more minimal invasive technique. Surg Endosc 22(10):2319–2322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Parkin E, Khurshid M, Ravi S, Linn T (2013) Surgical access through the stoma for laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann procedures. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 23(1):41–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Carus T, Emmert A (2011) Single-port laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann’s procedure: technique and results. Minim Invas Surg 2011:356784

    Google Scholar 

  16. Joshi HM, Gosselink MP, Adusumilli S, Cunningham C, Lindsey I, Jones OM (2014) Incision-less reversal of Hartmann’s procedure. Tech Coloproctol

  17. Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W, Demartines N, Roulin D, Francis N et al (2013) Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS((R))) Society recommendations. World J Surg 37(2):259–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Faure JP, Doucet C, Essique D, Badra Y, Carretier M, Richer JP 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 

  20. Mazeh H, Greenstein AJ, Swedish K, Nguyen SQ, Lipskar A, Weber KJ 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 

  21. Lahat G, Tulchinsky H, Goldman G, Klauzner JM, Rabau M (2005) Wound infection after ileostomy closure: a prospective randomized study comparing primary vs. delayed primary closure techniques. Techniques 9(3):206–208

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Vermulst N, Vermeulen J, Hazebroek EJ, Coene PP, van der Harst E (2006) Primary closure of the skin after stoma closure. Management of wound infections is easy without (long-term) complications. Digest Surg 23(4):255–258

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hackam DJ, Rotstein OD (1995) Wound infection during stoma closure. Can J Surg 38(2):191

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Harold DM, Johnson EK, Rizzo JA, Steele SR (2010) Primary closure of stoma site wounds after ostomy takedown. Am J Surg 199(5):621–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Polle SW, Dunker MS, Slors JF, Sprangers MA, Cuesta MA, Gouma DJ et al (2007) Body image, cosmesis, quality of life, and functional outcome of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy: long-term results of a randomized trial. Surg Endosc 21(8):1301–1307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, 5042 AD, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    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

Authors
  1. Stefan H. E. M. Clermonts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Winanda M. J. de Ruijter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yu-ting. T. van Loon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dareczka K. Wasowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joos Heisterkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John K. Maring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David D. E. Zimmerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan H. E. M. Clermonts.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

S. Clermonts, W.de Ruijter, Yu-ting T. van Loon, D. Wasowicz, J. Heisterkamp, J. Maring and D. Zimmerman have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clermonts, S.H.E.M., de Ruijter, W.M.J., van Loon, Yt.T. et al. Reversal of Hartmann’s procedure utilizing single-port laparoscopy: an attractive alternative to laparotomy. Surg Endosc 30, 1894–1901 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4407-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4407-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation