ReviewCureus2020
Reversal of Hartmann's Procedure: Evaluating Outcomes of Single-Port Laparoscopic Approach Versus Conventional Approach.
Review in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-Incision Laparoscopic Hartmann's Reversal Using the Stoma Site in a Patient with Perioperative Anaphylaxis.Surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Single-port laparoscopic versus open Hartmann's reversal: a retrospective analysis on surgical and postoperative outcomes.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Hartmann's Reversal: Controversies of a Challenging Operation.Minimally invasive surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bowel restoration following Hartmann's procedure (HP) remains a topic of discussion and innovation. This article seeks to highlight and analyze the outcomes of conventional reversal approaches such as open surgery (OS) and conventional laparoscopic (CL) to single-port laparoscopic reversal (SPLR) approach to evaluate whether SPLR is a feasible alternative to the OS or CL approach. A PubMed search using keywords yielded 5,750 articles. After applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 40 articles of relevance were reviewed, and endpoints considered. These included 13 systematic reviews and 27 observational reviews, three of which identified themselves as retrospective or comparative studies. The analysis showed overwhelming support for CL over OS as a choice for HP reversal. Studies comparing SPLR to CL showed SPLR to be a safe and feasible alternative, given its significantly shorter operating times, hospitalization times, and complication rates.
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.