Background
Hartmann's procedure (HP) is used in surgical emergencies such as colonic perforation and colonic obstruction. “Temporary” colostomy performed during HP is not always reversed in part due to potential morbidity and mortality associated with reversal. There are several contributing factors for patients requiring a permanent colostomy following HP. Therefore, there is still some discussion about which technique to use. The aim of this study was to evaluate perioperative variables of patients undergoing Hartmann's reversal using a laparoscopic and open approach.
Methods
The multicenter retrospective cohort study was done between January 2009 and December 2019 at 14 institutions globally. Patients who underwent Hartmann's reversal laparoscopic (LS) and open (OS) approaches were evaluated and compared. Sociodemographic, preoperative, intraoperative variables, and surgical outcomes were analyzed. The main outcomes evaluated were 30‐day mortality, length of stay, complications, and postoperative outcomes.
Results
Five hundred and two patients (264 in the LS and 238 in the OS group) were included. The most prevalent sex was male in 53.7%, the most common indication was complicated diverticular disease in 69.9%, and 85% were American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) II‐III. Intraoperative complications were noted in 5.3% and 3.4% in the LS and OS groups, respectively. Small bowel injuries were the most common intraoperative injury in 8.3%, with a higher incidence in the OS group compared with the LS group (12.2% vs. 4.9%,
p
< 0.5). Inadvertent injuries were more common in the small bowel (3%) in the LS group. A total of 17.2% in the OS versus 13.3% in the LS group required intensive care unit (ICU) admission (
p
= 0.2). The most frequent postoperative complication was ileus (12.6% in OS vs. 9.8% in LS group,
p
= 0.4)). Reintervention was required mainly in the OS group (15.5% vs. 5.3% in LS group,
p
< 0.5); mortality rate was 1%.
Conclusions
Laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal is safe and feasible, associated with superior clinical outcomes compared with open surgery.
Esophageal lung is a rare entity that results from embryological alterations during the formation of the ventral wall of the anterior intestine. The clinical manifestations of this pathology are vague, including respiratory or digestive symptoms, repetitive respiratory infections, dysphagia, or inability to swallow. The management is based on the exact anatomical and vascular abnormalities. We report the diagnostic and therapeutic approach in a preterm boy with esophageal lung. Also, we present a three-dimensional model for the classification of this pathology. In conclusion, the management relies on proper definition of the anatomy and the surgical strategy.
Introducción. La úlcera duodenal perforada es una entidad de etiología no clara que rara vez ocurre en la población pediátrica. Generalmente se diagnostica de manera intraoperatoria y el tratamiento ideal incluye el uso del parche de epiplón o de ser necesario, la resección quirúrgica.
Caso clínico. Se presenta un paciente de 12 años con abdomen agudo y diagnóstico tomográfico prequirúrgico de úlcera duodenal perforada, tratado por vía laparoscópica con drenaje de peritonitis y parche de Graham. La evolución y el seguimiento posterior fueron adecuados.
Discusión. La úlcera duodenal perforada es una entidad multifactorial, en la que se ha implicado el Helicobacter pylori. El diagnóstico preoperatorio es un reto y el tratamiento debe ser quirúrgico.
Conclusiones. Cuando se logra establecer el diagnóstico preoperatorio, se puede realizar un abordaje laparoscópico y el uso del parche de Graham cuando las úlceras son menores de dos centímetros.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.