ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2020
Trans-stomal single-port laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal is an efficacious and efficient procedure: a case-controlled study.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does robotics add value in Hartmann's reversal? A PRISMA-based systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
- Reversal of left-sided colostomy utilizing single-port laparoscopy a multicenter European audit and overview of the literature.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Observational
- Hartmann's Reversal: Controversies of a Challenging Operation.Minimally invasive surgery · 2022Article
- Efficacy and safety of single port robotic radical prostatectomy and multiport robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational andrology and urology · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHartman's reversal remains challenging and is associated with a widely variable success rate. In a previous study, we reported that laparoscopy may lower the mortality and morbidity rates of the procedure. The aim of the current study was to assess the operative results of single-port laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal (SP-HR) as compared to the more standard, multi-port laparoscopic variant (MP-HR).
methodsWe performed a retrospective, non-randomized, case-controlled study of 44 consecutive patients who had SP-HR (Group A) compared to 44 patients who had MP-HR (Group B). The study was conducted in a high-volume colorectal unit in a 1200-bed university affiliated hospital, The Poissy-Saint Germain Medical Complex, France.
resultsPreoperative patients' characteristics (sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, prior surgery, comorbidities, colonic disease) were comparable in both groups. The conversion rate was 13.6% and 4.5% in Group A and in Group B, respectively (p = 0.084) and consisted of placement of any additional ports. Conversion to open surgery did not occur in any patient in either group (p = 1). Mean operative time was shorter in Group A than in in Group B, (105 vs. 155 min; p = 0.0133). The mortality rate was 2.2% in Group A and 0% in Group B (p = 0.3145). The overall morbidity rate was 11.4% in Group A and 18.2% in Group B (p = 0.5344). The median length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in Group than in Group B (4.8 vs. 6.8 days; p = 0.0102).
conclusionsThe SP-HR technique was found to be safe and efficient. It compares favorably with MP-HR. Moreover, indirect cost savings could be induced by the reduction in the length of hospital stay.
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.