ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic Hartmann reversal: a multicentric analysis by ICoRS (Italian club of robotic Surgery).
Article in Updates in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- Methodological considerations on robotic versus laparoscopic Hartmann reversal.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hartmann's procedure is often performed in emergency settings for complicated diverticulitis, obstructive colorectal cancer, or colonic perforations when primary anastomosis is not feasible. Hartmann Reversal (HR) is technically demanding, primarily due to dense intra-abdominal adhesions, and is traditionally performed in open or laparoscopic surgery. However, laparoscopic reversal is associated with high conversion rates, often due to difficulties in adhesiolysis. Robotic surgery, offering enhanced visualization and instrument dexterity, has been proposed as a promising alternative. This retrospective multicenter study analyzed 89 patients who underwent minimally invasive Hartmann reversal across six Italian tertiary colorectal centers from 2013 to 2023. Of these, 45 patients underwent robotic reversal and 44 laparoscopic reversal. Only procedures that included standardized surgical steps-adhesiolysis, colostomy and rectal stump mobilization, and colorectal anastomosis-were included. The primary outcome was the conversion rate to open surgery. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative complications, postoperative morbidity, and recovery parameters. Baseline demographics and comorbidities were similar between groups. The conversion rate was significantly lower in the robotic group (0% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.001), though operative time was longer (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in overall postoperative complications (p = 0.052), anastomotic leaks (0 vs. 3, p = 0.285), or recovery outcomes. Multivariate analysis showed that no baseline variables significantly affected conversion risk. This is the first comparative study between robotic and laparoscopic Hartmann reversal. The findings suggest that robotic surgery may reduce conversion rates and improve procedural feasibility. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and assess long-term outcomes.
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.