Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Assessing trends in laparoscopic colostomy reversal and evaluating outcomes when compared to open procedures

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic colostomy reversal has emerged as a viable option for Hartmann’s reversal but the trends in national adoption and postoperative complications are unknown. This study evaluates the practice trends for laparoscopic colostomy and compares complications, length of stay, and operative times between laparoscopic and open colostomy reversal.

Methods

All patients who had open or laparoscopic colostomy reversal surgery (current procedure codes: 44227 and 44626) between 2005 and 2014 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Data collected included patient demographics, comorbid conditions, postsurgical diagnosis, and estimated probabilities of morbidity and mortality. Univariate and multivariate unconditional logistic regression models and linear regression models were employed to evaluate the associations between various outcomes and surgical specialties.

Results

The reported volume of both open and laparoscopic colostomy reversal surgeries increased over time, but the percentage of open reversal surgery decreased from 100% in 2005 to 74.2% in 2014. The average annual increase in percentage of laparoscopic colostomy reversal surgery was 2.87%. The complication rates of open colostomy reversal surgery were significantly higher than the rates of laparoscopic colostomy reversal surgery (P < 0.0001). Although there were fluctuations, the complication rates remained constant over the 9-year study period for both open and laparoscopic colostomy reversal surgeries. The total hospital length of stay among patients who had laparoscopic colostomy reversal surgery was shorter compared to patients who had open colostomy reversal surgery [mean change (MC) = −1.77 days, P < 0.0001]. Similarly, a shorter operation time was also observed for patients who had laparoscopic colostomy reversal surgery (MC = −26.48 min, P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Based on the NSQIP database, laparoscopic colostomy reversal is increasing steadily year over year from 2005 to 2014 in NSQIP participating hospitals. Overall complication rates and length of stay are significantly lower and sustained throughout the study period for laparoscopic reversal.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sheetz KH, Waits SA, Krell RW, Morris AM, Englesbe MJ, Mullard A, Campbell DA, Hendren S (2014) Complication rates of ostomy surgery are high and vary significantly between hospitals. Dis Colon Rectum 57:632–637

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kwiatt M, Kawata M (2013) Avoidance and management of stomal complications. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 26:112–121

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaiser AM, Israelit S, Klaristenfeld D, Selvindoss P, Vukasin P, Ault G, Beart RW (2008) Morbidity of ostomy takedown. J Gastrointest Surg 12:437–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Aydin HN, Remzi FH, Tekkis PP, Fazio VW (2005) Hartmann’s reversal is associated with high postoperative adverse events. Dis Colon Rectum 48:2117–2126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Marsden MR, Conti JA, Zeidan S, Flashman KG, Khan JS, O’Leary DP, Parvaiz A (2012) The selective use of splenic flexure mobilization is safe in both laparoscopic and open anterior resections. Colorectal Dis 14:1255–1261

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Labib M, Palfrey S, Paniagua E, Callender R (1997) The postoperative inflammatory response to injury following laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy. Ann Clin Biochem 34(5):543–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cellini C, Deeb AP, Sharma A, Monson JR, Fleming FJ (2013) Association between operative approach and complications in patients undergoing Hartmann’s reversal. Br J Surg 100:1094–1099

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Arkenbosch J, Miyagaki H, Kumara HM, Yan X, Cekic V, Whelan RL (2015) 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 29:2109–2114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rotholtz NA, Canelas AG, Bun ME, Laporte M, Sadava EE, Ferrentino N, Guckenheimer SA (2016) Laparoscopic approach in complicated diverticular disease. World J Gastrointest Surg 8:308–314

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin Y. Pei.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Kevin Y. Pei, Kimberly A. Davis, and Yawei Zhang 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

Pei, K.Y., Davis, K.A. & Zhang, Y. Assessing trends in laparoscopic colostomy reversal and evaluating outcomes when compared to open procedures. Surg Endosc 32, 695–701 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5725-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5725-4

Keywords

Navigation