SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2022
Is laparoscopy a reliable alternative to laparotomy in Hartmann's reversal? An updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 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 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
- Minimally invasive emergency colorectal surgery in nonspecialist surgical centers: a necessity, not a luxury.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2025Article
- Catastrophic outcome following misidentification of bowel anatomy during Hartmann's reversal: A case report and technical considerations.International journal of surgery case reports · 2024Article
- Postoperative effects of laparoscopic Hartmann reversal: A multicenter propensity score matched study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal has better clinical outcomes compared to open surgery: An international multicenter cohort study involving 502 patients.Health science reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on and updated meta-analysis of surgical postoperative complications after laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal (LHR) and open Hartmann's reversal (OHR).
methodsStudies comparing LHR versus OHR published from inception until June 2020 were selected and submitted to a systematic review and meta-analysis. Articles were searched in the MEDLINE and Cochrane Trials Register databases. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.0.
resultsTwenty-three retrospective comparative studies (including 5 case-controlled studies) with a total of 3139 patients with LHR and a total of 10,325 patients with OHR were included. Meta-analysis showed that LHR was significantly associated with a decreased rate of revision surgery (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.60-0.89, p < 0.001), anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.49-0.75, p < 0.00001), postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.47-0.58, p < 0.00001), intra-abdominal abscess (OR = 0.67 [0.52-0.87], 95% CI = , p = 0.003), wound abscess (OR = 0.53 [0.46-0.61], 95% CI = , p < 0.00001), and postoperative ileus (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.29-0.72, p = 0.0008), respectively. Conversely, mortality was comparable between LHR and OHR.
conclusionsThese results suggest that LHR significantly improved surgical postoperative outcomes. However, considering the low level of evidence, further randomized trials are required to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35133538What 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.