SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2015
Laparoscopic versus open Hartmann's reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes of multi-port versus single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in Hartmann's reversal.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Pooled it
- Is laparoscopy a reliable alternative to laparotomy in Hartmann's reversal? An updated meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Pooled it
- Italian guidelines for the surgical management of enteral stomas in adults.Techniques in coloproctology · 2019Guideline
- Conventional Versus Minimally Invasive Hartmann Takedown: A Meta-analysis of the Literature.World journal of surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic Hartmann reversal: a multicentric analysis by ICoRS (Italian club of robotic Surgery).Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Hartmann's procedure reversal rate and short-term outcomes: a single centre retrospective cohort study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Single-port laparoscopic versus open Hartmann's reversal: a retrospective analysis on surgical and postoperative outcomes.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- A proactive technique for reversal of Hartmann's procedure: lifting the rectal stump to the abdominal wall.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- National trends in utilization and outcomes of elective open and minimally invasive colostomy reversal: A NSQIP analysis.PloS one · 2025Article
- Surgical Outcomes of Open and Laparoscopic Hartmann Reversal: A Single-Center Comparative Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Postoperative effects of laparoscopic Hartmann reversal: A multicenter propensity score matched study.PloS one · 2023Article
- The INTESTINE study: INtended TEmporary STomas In crohN's diseasE. Protocol for an international multicentre study.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal has better clinical outcomes compared to open surgery: An international multicenter cohort study involving 502 patients.Health science reports · 2022Article
- Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Reversal of Hartmann's Procedure: A Single Centre Experience.Cureus · 2021Article
- Successful reversal of ostomy 13 years after Hartmann procedure in a patient with colon cancer: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- Review
- Future Directions.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2020Review
- Comparison between laparoscopic and open Hartmann's reversal: results of a decade-long multicenter retrospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Hartmann's reversal after colonic perforation or anastomosis leakage, is it the same procedure? A retrospective study of 150 patients.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHartmann's reversal is a major surgical procedure with consistent morbidity and mortality rates. Laparoscopy has been extensively applied to colorectal surgery providing significant benefits on short- and long-term outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of the current evidence comparing the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal (LHR) to open Hartmann's reversal (OHR).
methodsA systematic search of Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane database was performed. Comparative studies reporting short-term outcomes of LHR versus OHR with an intention-to-treat analysis were considered for eligibility. Primary outcome was 30-day morbidity. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, 30-day reoperations, length of hospital stay (LOS), operating time, and estimated blood loss.
resultsThirteen studies comparing 862 patients (403 LHR vs 459 OHR) were included. There was no difference in mortality, while LHR was associated with a reduced overall postoperative 30-day morbidity (OR, 0.24; 95 % CI, 0.16 to 0.34). Wound infections (OR, 0.54; 95 % CI, 0.35 to 0.85) and ileus (OR, 0.47; 95 % CI, 0.25 to 0.87) were more common after OHR. LOS was shorter in the laparoscopic group as it was the time to flatus. Meta-regression analysis showed that the results were independent from potential effect modifiers.
conclusionsLHR has less short-term complications than OHR in terms of overall morbidity, wound infection, and postoperative ileus. LOS is shorter in the LHR group, while no significant difference exists in the operating time. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings on unbiased populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26189028What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.