• Users Online: 88
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 57-63

Is Laparoscopic Hartmann's Reversal a Safe Option? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis


1 Division of Cancer Surgery; Division of Cancer Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000, Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010; Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010, Australia
2 Department of Colorectal Surgery, Alfred Hospital, 55 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia
3 Division of Cancer Surgery; Division of Cancer Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000, Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010, Australia

Correspondence Address:
Joseph C Kong
Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre,Melbourne, 305 Grattan Street, VIC 3000
Australia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1941-8213.305888

Rights and Permissions

Background: Hartmann's reversal is a major operation to restore colorectal continuity. Traditionally, an open Hartmann's reversal (OHR) has been performed but there is a trend toward performing laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal (LHR). With the increasing number of publications comparing these two, it is important to ascertain whether the benefits of LHR outweigh the risks. Objective: To compare LHR and OHR with respect to morbidity and mortality rates. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting: The study was conducted at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia. Patients and Methods: A detailed systematic search was performed through PubMed, SCOPUS, TRIP, EMBASE, and ClinicalKey from 1990 to October 26, 2016. A review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was 30-day morbidity. Secondary outcome measures included estimated intraoperative blood loss, conversion from laparoscopic to open approach, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. Sample Size: Eighteen eligible studies were identified, comprising a total of 7824 patients: 1586 in the laparoscopic group and 6238 in the open group. Results: There was no statistical difference in mean operative time between the two groups. Overall morbidity was lower in the LHR group (16.8% vs 23.7%, P < 0.0001). Subgroup-analysis showed a higher risk of sepsis (6.5% vs 3.2%; P < 0.0001), wound infection (22.5% vs 12.6%; P < 0.0001), and ileus (13.4% vs 5.5%; P = 0.001) in the OHR group. Conclusion: LHR was associated with a lower morbidity rate and shorter hospital stay with an equivalent operative time. There is a moderate rate of conversion and appropriate case selection is important. Limitations: An absence of prospective or randomized trials comparing the two approaches for Hartmann's reversal, contributing to selection bias in our study. It was difficult to combine patient characteristics data due to the heterogeneity in the reported parameters. Conflict of Interest: None.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2233    
    Printed409    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded239    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal