Although end colostomy closure following Hartmann’s procedure is a major surgery that is traditionally performed by conventional celiotomy, over the last decade there has been a growing interest toward the application of different minimally invasive techniques. We aimed at evaluating the relative outcomes of conventional surgery versus minimally invasive surgery by meta-analyzing the available data from the medical literature. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and EMBASE electronic databases were searched through August 2018. Inclusion criteria considered eligible all comparative studies evaluating open versus minimally invasive procedures. Conventional laparoscopy, robotic and single-port laparoscopy were considered as minimally invasive techniques. Overall morbidity, rate of anastomotic failure, rate of wound complications and mortality were evaluated as primary outcomes. Perioperative details and surgical outcomes were also assessed. The data of a total of 13,740 patients from 26 studies were eventually included in the analysis. There were no significant differences on baseline characteristics such as age, BMI and proportion of high-risk patients between the two groups of patients. As compared to the conventional technique, minimally invasive surgery proved significantly superior in terms of postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay and rate of incisional hernia. The current literature suggests that minimally invasive surgery should be considered in performing Hartmann’s reversal, if technically viable. However, due to the low level of the available evidence it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions.

Conventional Versus Minimally Invasive Hartmann Takedown: A Meta-analysis of the Literature / Guerra, F.; Coletta, D.; Del Basso, C.; Giuliani, G.; Patriti, A.. - In: WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY. - ISSN 0364-2313. - 43:7(2019), pp. 1820-1828. [10.1007/s00268-019-04962-8]

Conventional Versus Minimally Invasive Hartmann Takedown: A Meta-analysis of the Literature

Guerra F.
;
Coletta D.;Del Basso C.;Giuliani G.;
2019

Abstract

Although end colostomy closure following Hartmann’s procedure is a major surgery that is traditionally performed by conventional celiotomy, over the last decade there has been a growing interest toward the application of different minimally invasive techniques. We aimed at evaluating the relative outcomes of conventional surgery versus minimally invasive surgery by meta-analyzing the available data from the medical literature. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and EMBASE electronic databases were searched through August 2018. Inclusion criteria considered eligible all comparative studies evaluating open versus minimally invasive procedures. Conventional laparoscopy, robotic and single-port laparoscopy were considered as minimally invasive techniques. Overall morbidity, rate of anastomotic failure, rate of wound complications and mortality were evaluated as primary outcomes. Perioperative details and surgical outcomes were also assessed. The data of a total of 13,740 patients from 26 studies were eventually included in the analysis. There were no significant differences on baseline characteristics such as age, BMI and proportion of high-risk patients between the two groups of patients. As compared to the conventional technique, minimally invasive surgery proved significantly superior in terms of postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay and rate of incisional hernia. The current literature suggests that minimally invasive surgery should be considered in performing Hartmann’s reversal, if technically viable. However, due to the low level of the available evidence it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions.
2019
hartmann takedown, minimally invasive surgery, colostomy closure
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Conventional Versus Minimally Invasive Hartmann Takedown: A Meta-analysis of the Literature / Guerra, F.; Coletta, D.; Del Basso, C.; Giuliani, G.; Patriti, A.. - In: WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY. - ISSN 0364-2313. - 43:7(2019), pp. 1820-1828. [10.1007/s00268-019-04962-8]
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1672119
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 20
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 21
social impact