Cargando…

Postoperative effects of laparoscopic Hartmann reversal: A multicenter propensity score matched study

BACKGROUND: Although the advantages of laparoscopic Hartmann reversal (LHR) compared to open Hartmann reversal (OHR) have been reported in the literature, the number of multicenter studies with good matching investigating this topic is rare. In the present study, we aimed to confirm the advantages o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Kil-yong, Lee, Jaeim, Oh, Seong Taek, Lee, Chul Seung, Kim, Nam Suk, Song, Ju Myung, Yoo, Ri-Na, Choi, Byung Jo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10237654/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37267375
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286562
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Although the advantages of laparoscopic Hartmann reversal (LHR) compared to open Hartmann reversal (OHR) have been reported in the literature, the number of multicenter studies with good matching investigating this topic is rare. In the present study, we aimed to confirm the advantages of LHR in terms of short-term outcomes through propensity score matching of LHR and OHR groups, using data collected from multiple institutions. METHODS: Patients who underwent Hartmann reversal at six institutions under the Catholic Medical Center of the Catholic University of Korea between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2021, were included. The patients were divided into the LHR and OHR groups based on the technique used. The two groups were matched using propensity score matching (1:1 ratio, logistic regression with the nearest-neighbor method). The primary outcome was postoperative ileus (POI) frequency, and secondary outcomes were time to solid diet (days) and length of stay (days). RESULTS: Among 337 patients, propensity score matching was performed on 322, after excluding 15 who had undergone open conversion. Of these, 63 patients were assigned to each group through propensity score matching. There was no difference in the frequency of adhesiolysis (77.8% vs. 82.5%, p = 0.503) or the operation time. (210 (IQR 159–290) vs. 233 (IQR 160–280), p = 0.718) between the two groups. As the primary outcome, the LHR group showed significantly lower POI frequency than the OHR group. (4.8% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.0041) Regarding the secondary outcomes, the LHR group showed a shorter period to solid diet than the OHR group. The length of hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the LHR group (4 vs. 6, p < 0.0001; 9 vs. 12, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: LHR is an effective method to ensure faster recovery of patients after surgery compared to OHR.