Open <i>vs</i> laparoscopic approach for reversal of Hartmann’s procedure: a systematic review

Siddiqui, Muhammed R; Sajid, M. S.; Baig, Mirza

doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01892.x

Cited by 64 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(87 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…12,13 In this review, the reversal rate was in line with previous UK studies, 6,8 at 21%. This is an improvement on the 1992…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

“…16 Siddiqui et al published the first substantial systematic review of LRH, concluding that it has fewer complications than ORH. 8 Complications resulting from ORH were much more serious and debilitating than those resulting from LRH. It should be noted that those patients undergoing ORH were more likely to have significant comorbidities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 Reversal is also associated with high complication and morbidity rates. 8,9 Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure (LRH) has been associated with a lower postoperative complication rate, a shorter hospital stay and a reduction in morbidity compared with open reversal (ORH). 7,10,11 LRH could therefore offer reduced morbidity and mortality while improving reversal rates as patients are more likely to be fit for laparoscopic surgery.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A retrospective case note review of laparoscopic versus open reversal of Hartmann’s procedure

Walklett

Yeomans

2014

annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

11.58 days) p=0.006). Seven ORH patients (21%) were reoperated but only one LRH patient (13%) had a reoperation at six months. Five factors were found to have a significant effect on the likelihood of reversal of Hartmann's procedure. CONCLUSIONS The overall reversal rate for Hartmann's procedure remains low. Shorter hospital stays, lower 6-month reoperation rates and reduced 30-day complication rates are associated with LRH when compared with ORH.

show abstract

“…12,13 In this review, the reversal rate was in line with previous UK studies, 6,8 at 21%. This is an improvement on the 1992…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A retrospective case note review of laparoscopic versus open reversal of Hartmann’s procedure

Walklett

Yeomans

2014

annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 Although there are well-known advantages of minimally invasive work, 3,4 techniques aimed at safer procedures are continuously proposed. 5 One area of focus has been on preventing conversion to an open operation due to bile duct injury.…”

Section: O Riginally Described In 1985mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Meta-analysis of Outcomes After Routine Aspiration of the Gallbladder During Cholecystectomy

Siddiqui

Sajid

Nisar

et al. 2011

International Surgery

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a meta-analysis of published literature comparing outcomes after aspirating (ASP) the gallbladder versus nonaspiration (NASP). Electronic databases were searched from January 1985 to November 2009. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain a summative outcome. Two randomized, controlled trials involving 360 patients were analyzed. A total of 180 patients were in the ASP group, and 180 were in the NASP group. There was no significant increase in operative time in the ASP group compared with the NASP group [random-effects model: standardized mean difference, 20.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), 22.16, 0.71; z = 0.99; df = 1; P = 0.32], but there was significant heterogeneity among trials (Q = 42.4; P , 0.001; I 2 = 98%). Patients undergoing ASP were less likely to have a gallbladder perforation [random-effects model: risk ratio (RR), 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19, 0.96; z = 2.05; df = 1; P , 0.05], but no difference was found regarding the loss of gallstones (random-effects model: RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.30, 5.85; z = 0.38; df = 1; P = 0.70). No difference was seen for liver bed bleeding (P = 0.43) or overall 30-day infection rates (P = 0.66). After aspiration, gallbladder perforation rates may be lower. This does not appear to translate into decreased loss of gallstones or infection rates. There was no significant difference between techniques in blood loss from the liver bed. Further randomized, controlled trials and follow-up studies are required to confirm these results and to establish long-term sequelae.

show abstract

“…The laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal (LHR) appears to be a promising alternative to open surgery with data showing benefits regarding morbidity, postoperative recovery, reoperation rates, and length of hospital stay [5,[23][24][25][26]. A comparison of LHR and open Hartmann reversal in 4148 patients out of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database showed a significant lower overall complication rate in favor of the laparoscopic approach (18.4 versus 27 %, p<0.0001) [27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hartmann’s procedure and laparoscopic reversal versus primary anastomosis and ileostomy closure for left colonic perforation

Steinemann

Stierle

Zerz

et al. 2015

Langenbecks Arch Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Open vs laparoscopic approach for reversal of Hartmann’s procedure: a systematic review

Abstract: Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure is safe, has fewer complications and shorter hospital stays. This approach may be considered for reversal, however, randomized controlled trials are required to strengthen the evidence.

Cited by 64 publications

References 32 publications

A retrospective case note review of laparoscopic versus open reversal of Hartmann’s procedure

A retrospective case note review of laparoscopic versus open reversal of Hartmann’s procedure

A Meta-analysis of Outcomes After Routine Aspiration of the Gallbladder During Cholecystectomy

Hartmann’s procedure and laparoscopic reversal versus primary anastomosis and ileostomy closure for left colonic perforation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About