ArticlePloS one2023
Postoperative effects of laparoscopic Hartmann reversal: A multicenter propensity score matched study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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, 3 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
- Strategies to Reduce the Risk of Rectal Stump Leakage After Hartmann's Procedure: A Structured Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Single-Incision Laparoscopic Hartmann's Reversal Using the Stoma Site in a Patient with Perioperative Anaphylaxis.Surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive emergency colorectal surgery in nonspecialist surgical centers: a necessity, not a luxury.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2025Article
- Trends in operative time and patient outcomes in robotic colostomy reversal: surgeons' short-term pain for patients' long-term gain.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the advantages of laparoscopic Hartmann reversal (LHR) compared to open Hartmann reversal (OHR) have been reported in the literature, the number of multicenter studies with good matching investigating this topic is rare. In the present study, we aimed to confirm the advantages of LHR in terms of short-term outcomes through propensity score matching of LHR and OHR groups, using data collected from multiple institutions.
methodsPatients who underwent Hartmann reversal at six institutions under the Catholic Medical Center of the Catholic University of Korea between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2021, were included. The patients were divided into the LHR and OHR groups based on the technique used. The two groups were matched using propensity score matching (1:1 ratio, logistic regression with the nearest-neighbor method). The primary outcome was postoperative ileus (POI) frequency, and secondary outcomes were time to solid diet (days) and length of stay (days).
resultsAmong 337 patients, propensity score matching was performed on 322, after excluding 15 who had undergone open conversion. Of these, 63 patients were assigned to each group through propensity score matching. There was no difference in the frequency of adhesiolysis (77.8% vs. 82.5%, p = 0.503) or the operation time. (210 (IQR 159-290) vs. 233 (IQR 160-280), p = 0.718) between the two groups. As the primary outcome, the LHR group showed significantly lower POI frequency than the OHR group. (4.8% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.0041) Regarding the secondary outcomes, the LHR group showed a shorter period to solid diet than the OHR group. The length of hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the LHR group (4 vs. 6, p < 0.0001; 9 vs. 12, p<0.0001).
conclusionLHR is an effective method to ensure faster recovery of patients after surgery compared to OHR.
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.