Laparoscopic Versus Open Hartmann Reversal: A Case-Control Study.
Paolo PanaccioTommaso GrottolaRossana PercarioFederico SelvaggiSeverino CericolaAlfonso LapergolaMaira FarrukhGiuseppe Di MartinoMarco RicciardielloPierluigi Di SebastianoFabio Francesco di MolaPublished in: Surgery research and practice (2021)
The two groups of patients were homogeneous for gender, age, body mass index, cause of primary surgery, time to reversal, and comorbidities. In 97% of the cases, HP was done by open surgery. Our data revealed no difference in mean operation time (LHR: 180.5 ± 35.1 vs. OHR: 225.2 ± 48.4) and morbidity rate, although, in OHR group, there were more severe complications. Less intraoperative blood loss (LHR: 100 ± 40 mL vs. OHR: 450 ± 125 mL; p value <0.001), shorter time to flatus (LHR: 2.4 days vs. OHR: 3.6 days; p value <0.021), and shorter hospitalization (LHR: 4.4 vs. OHR: 11.2 days; p value <0.001) were observed in the LHR group. Mortality rate was null in both groups. Discussion. LHR is feasible and safe even for patients who received a primary open Hartmann's procedure. We suggest careful patient's selection allowing LHR procedures to highly skilled laparoscopy surgeons.
Keyphrases
- minimally invasive
- robot assisted
- body mass index
- coronary artery bypass
- ejection fraction
- newly diagnosed
- risk factors
- patients undergoing
- case report
- early onset
- chronic kidney disease
- prognostic factors
- quality improvement
- mental health
- surgical site infection
- single cell
- atrial fibrillation
- patient reported outcomes
- coronary artery disease
- big data
- weight loss
- percutaneous coronary intervention