Is Laparoscopic Hartmann′s Reversal a Safe Option? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Joseph C. H. Kong, Glen R Guerra, S. Prabhakaran, S. Warrier, A. Heriot
{"title":"Is Laparoscopic Hartmann′s Reversal a Safe Option? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Joseph C. H. Kong, Glen R Guerra, S. Prabhakaran, S. Warrier, A. Heriot","doi":"10.4103/1941-8213.305888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Hartmann′s reversal is a major operation to restore colorectal continuity. Traditionally, an open Hartmann′s reversal (OHR) has been performed but there is a trend toward performing laparoscopic Hartmann′s reversal (LHR). With the increasing number of publications comparing these two, it is important to ascertain whether the benefits of LHR outweigh the risks. Objective: To compare LHR and OHR with respect to morbidity and mortality rates. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting: The study was conducted at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia. Patients and Methods: A detailed systematic search was performed through PubMed, SCOPUS, TRIP, EMBASE, and ClinicalKey from 1990 to October 26, 2016. A review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was 30-day morbidity. Secondary outcome measures included estimated intraoperative blood loss, conversion from laparoscopic to open approach, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. Sample Size: Eighteen eligible studies were identified, comprising a total of 7824 patients: 1586 in the laparoscopic group and 6238 in the open group. Results: There was no statistical difference in mean operative time between the two groups. Overall morbidity was lower in the LHR group (16.8% vs 23.7%, P < 0.0001). Subgroup-analysis showed a higher risk of sepsis (6.5% vs 3.2%; P < 0.0001), wound infection (22.5% vs 12.6%; P < 0.0001), and ileus (13.4% vs 5.5%; P = 0.001) in the OHR group. Conclusion: LHR was associated with a lower morbidity rate and shorter hospital stay with an equivalent operative time. There is a moderate rate of conversion and appropriate case selection is important. Limitations: An absence of prospective or randomized trials comparing the two approaches for Hartmann′s reversal, contributing to selection bias in our study. It was difficult to combine patient characteristics data due to the heterogeneity in the reported parameters. Conflict of Interest: None.","PeriodicalId":90396,"journal":{"name":"World journal of colorectal surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of colorectal surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/1941-8213.305888","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hartmann′s reversal is a major operation to restore colorectal continuity. Traditionally, an open Hartmann′s reversal (OHR) has been performed but there is a trend toward performing laparoscopic Hartmann′s reversal (LHR). With the increasing number of publications comparing these two, it is important to ascertain whether the benefits of LHR outweigh the risks. Objective: To compare LHR and OHR with respect to morbidity and mortality rates. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting: The study was conducted at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia. Patients and Methods: A detailed systematic search was performed through PubMed, SCOPUS, TRIP, EMBASE, and ClinicalKey from 1990 to October 26, 2016. A review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was 30-day morbidity. Secondary outcome measures included estimated intraoperative blood loss, conversion from laparoscopic to open approach, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. Sample Size: Eighteen eligible studies were identified, comprising a total of 7824 patients: 1586 in the laparoscopic group and 6238 in the open group. Results: There was no statistical difference in mean operative time between the two groups. Overall morbidity was lower in the LHR group (16.8% vs 23.7%, P < 0.0001). Subgroup-analysis showed a higher risk of sepsis (6.5% vs 3.2%; P < 0.0001), wound infection (22.5% vs 12.6%; P < 0.0001), and ileus (13.4% vs 5.5%; P = 0.001) in the OHR group. Conclusion: LHR was associated with a lower morbidity rate and shorter hospital stay with an equivalent operative time. There is a moderate rate of conversion and appropriate case selection is important. Limitations: An absence of prospective or randomized trials comparing the two approaches for Hartmann′s reversal, contributing to selection bias in our study. It was difficult to combine patient characteristics data due to the heterogeneity in the reported parameters. Conflict of Interest: None.
腹腔镜Hartmann反转是一个安全的选择吗?系统综述与荟萃分析
背景:Hartmann反转术是恢复结直肠连续性的主要手术。传统上,已经进行了开放性哈特曼反转术(OHR),但有进行腹腔镜哈特曼反转(LHR)的趋势。随着越来越多的出版物将两者进行比较,确定LHR的益处是否大于风险是很重要的。目的:比较LHR和OHR的发病率和死亡率。设计:系统综述和荟萃分析。背景:这项研究是在澳大利亚墨尔本的彼得·麦卡勒姆癌症中心进行的。患者和方法:从1990年到2016年10月26日,通过PubMed、SCOPUS、TRIP、EMBASE和ClinicalKey进行了详细的系统搜索。根据PRISMA准则进行了审查。主要转归指标:主要转归指标为30天发病率。次要转归指标包括估计术中出血量、从腹腔镜手术转为开放式手术、住院时间和30天死亡率。样本量:确定了18项符合条件的研究,共包括7824名患者:腹腔镜组1586名,开放组6238名。结果:两组平均手术时间无统计学差异。LHR组的总体发病率较低(16.8%vs 23.7%,P<0.0001)。亚组分析显示,OHR组败血症(6.5%vs 3.2%;P<0.0001)、伤口感染(22.5%vs 12.6%;<0.0001)和肠梗阻(13.4%vs 5.5%;P=0.001)的风险较高。结论:LHR与较低的发病率和较短的住院时间相关,手术时间相等。转化率适中,适当的案例选择很重要。局限性:在我们的研究中,缺乏比较两种Hartmann逆转方法的前瞻性或随机试验,这导致了选择偏差。由于报告参数的异质性,很难组合患者特征数据。利益冲突:无。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信