SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2019
Conventional Versus Minimally Invasive Hartmann Takedown: A Meta-analysis of the Literature.
Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic technique for the treatment of left-sided colonic diverticular disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic Hartmann reversal: a multicentric analysis by ICoRS (Italian club of robotic Surgery).Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic Hartmann reversal is associated with reduced postoperative complications compared with laparoscopic approach: a propensity-weighted NSQIP study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Single-port laparoscopic versus open Hartmann's reversal: a retrospective analysis on surgical and postoperative outcomes.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Trends in operative time and patient outcomes in robotic colostomy reversal: surgeons' short-term pain for patients' long-term gain.Surgical endoscopy · 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
- Laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal has better clinical outcomes compared to open surgery: An international multicenter cohort study involving 502 patients.Health science reports · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic Hartmann reversal: experiences from a developing country.Annals of coloproctology · 2022Article
- Colostomy Reversal following Hartmann's Procedure: The Importance of Timing in Short- and Long-Term Complications: A Retrospective Multicentric Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Reversal of left-sided colostomy utilizing single-port laparoscopy a multicenter European audit and overview of the literature.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Observational
- Factors Predicting the Reversal of Hartmann's Procedure.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although end colostomy closure following Hartmann's procedure is a major surgery that is traditionally performed by conventional celiotomy, over the last decade there has been a growing interest toward the application of different minimally invasive techniques. We aimed at evaluating the relative outcomes of conventional surgery versus minimally invasive surgery by meta-analyzing the available data from the medical literature. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and EMBASE electronic databases were searched through August 2018. Inclusion criteria considered eligible all comparative studies evaluating open versus minimally invasive procedures. Conventional laparoscopy, robotic and single-port laparoscopy were considered as minimally invasive techniques. Overall morbidity, rate of anastomotic failure, rate of wound complications and mortality were evaluated as primary outcomes. Perioperative details and surgical outcomes were also assessed. The data of a total of 13,740 patients from 26 studies were eventually included in the analysis. There were no significant differences on baseline characteristics such as age, BMI and proportion of high-risk patients between the two groups of patients. As compared to the conventional technique, minimally invasive surgery proved significantly superior in terms of postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay and rate of incisional hernia. The current literature suggests that minimally invasive surgery should be considered in performing Hartmann's reversal, if technically viable. However, due to the low level of the available evidence it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.