ArticleCureus2021
Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Reversal of Hartmann's Procedure: A Single Centre Experience.
Article in Cureus, 2021. 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.
- Does robotics add value in Hartmann's reversal? A PRISMA-based systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic Hartmann reversal is associated with reduced postoperative complications compared with laparoscopic approach: a propensity-weighted NSQIP study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Reversal of Hartmann's procedure: The impact of timing - a single-tertiary-center experience.Surgery in practice and science · 2025Article
- Surgical Outcomes of Open and Laparoscopic Hartmann Reversal: A Single-Center Comparative Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Preliminary results of Polish national multicenter study on colostomy reversal - LICO (Liquidation of Colostomy) study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2024Article
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
Introduction Hartmann's procedure is widely performed to fix colonic obstruction and perforation. It should ideally be followed by a reversal to restore bowel continuity. Reversal of Hartmann's procedure was traditionally performed using an open technique. However, in recent days, the use of a laparoscopic approach has become increasingly popular. In our retrospective observational study, we aim to investigate the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open reversal of Hartmann's procedure in a UK tertiary centre. Methods All patients who underwent reversal of their Hartmann's procedure between January 2017 and December 2019 were included in the study. Data including demographics, days between primary operation and reversal, laparoscopic or open reversal, length of hospital stay following reversal procedure, 30-day readmission, mortality, and complication rate were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using t-test and chi-squared test. Results Forty-nine patients underwent reversal of Hartmann's procedure from January 2017 to December 2019. The mean age of our cohort was 59.6 ± 13.2 years. There was no significant difference in baseline demographics of both groups, apart from the number of days between the primary operation and reversal procedure. There was also no statistical difference in length of stay, 30-day readmission, and mortality between laparoscopic and open reversal techniques. However, there was a higher incidence of wound complications in patients who underwent open reversal of Hartmann's procedure. Conclusion The reversal of Hartmann's procedure is a challenging operation. We found no significant difference between both open and laparoscopic approaches, but our study might be confounded by various factors including small sample size and selection bias. A larger, randomised study with greater statistical power is needed to confirm our findings.
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.