ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2025
Single-port laparoscopic versus open Hartmann's reversal: a retrospective analysis on surgical and postoperative outcomes.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aims to compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal (SPLHR) and open Hartmann's reversal (OHR). MATERIAL AND
methodsConsecutive patients who underwent OHR and SPLHR between 2019 and 2021 were analyzed retrospectively from a prospectively maintained database.
resultsDuring the study period, 23 patients underwent SPLHR and 24 patients underwent OHR. The median age, gender, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, and presence of midline/parastomal hernias were similar across the groups. The median estimated blood loss was significantly lower (100 versus 175 ml, p = 0.011), and also the median operation time (92 versus 120 min, p = 0.016) was shorter in the SPLHR group. Inadvertent bowel injury was more frequently observed in OHR group (37.5% versus 8.7%, p = 0.02). Overall postoperative complications did not differ between groups, but wound infections were significantly more common in the OHR group (33.3% versus 4.3%, p = 0.023). The SPLHR group experienced a shorter time to first flatus (median 2 versus 3 days, p = 0.04), a shorter time to resuming a soft diet (median 2 versus 3 days, p = 0.002), and a shorter length of hospital stay (4 versus 4.5 days, p = 0.007).
conclusionThis study confirms that SPLHR is a reliable and efficient method. SPLHR has several advantages in terms of perioperative morbidity and postoperative outcomes compared with OHR in selected patients.
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.