Annals of Coloproctology

Original Articles

Benign GI diease,Surgical technique

Laparoscopic Hartmann’s Reversal: Application of a Single-Port Approach Through the Colostomy Site: Byung Mo Kang, Chang Woo Kim, Suk-Hwan Lee; Ann Coloproctol. 2021;37(1):29-34. Published online December 4, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2020.09.21

5,957 View
103 Download
4 Web of Science
6 Citations

Purpose
Recently, laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann’s colostomy was performed with favorable outcomes by many surgeons. We partially applied the concepts of single-port laparoscopic procedure through the colostomy site to remove intraperitoneal adhesion during initial step of the laparoscopic Hartmann’s reversal. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann’s colostomy with the application of single-port laparoscopic techniques through the colostomy site.
Methods
From October 2008 to November 2018, the laparoscopic Hartmann’s reversal was attempted in 20 patients. After colostomy take-downs, the single-port device was installed at the colostomy site and the single-port laparoscopic procedure was performed to remove intraperitoneal adhesions to provide space for additional trocars. After additional trocars were inserted, the descending colon and rectal stump were mobilized, and the colorectal anastomosis was completed. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records and analyzed the data to identify the perioperative complication rates as the primary outcome.
Results
Of the 20 patients, 3 patients (15.0%) had open conversions due to severe adhesions. Intraoperative small bowel injuries occurred in 2 patients (10.0%) and these were repaired through the colostomy site. Postoperative complications developed in 4 patients (20.0%) and were managed with medical treatments or wound closures under local anesthesia.
Conclusion
The single-port laparoscopic procedure through the colostomy site is sufficiently safe in order to complete the Hartmann’s reversal. We recommend that the colostomy site should be used as the access route into the abdominal cavity for the Hartmann’s reversal.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Single‐port laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure through the colostomy site: technical aspects and early postoperative outcomes
Ahmet Akmercan, Tayfun Akmercan, Tevfik Kıvılcım Uprak
ANZ Journal of Surgery.2025; 95(1-2): 151. CrossRef
Handmade Single-Port Laparoscopic Hartmann’s Stoma Reversal Procedure
Ahmet Akmercan, Ali Hajali, Tevfik Kıvılcım Uprak
Videoscopy.2025; 35(1): 1. CrossRef
Impact of single-port laparoscopic approach on scar assessment by patients and observers: a multicenter retrospective study
Sung Uk Bae, Kyeong Eui Kim, Chang-Woo Kim, Ji-Hoon Kim, Woon Kyung Jeong, Yoon-Suk Lee, Seong Kyu Baek, Suk-Hwan Lee, Jun-Gi Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2025; 41(2): 154. CrossRef
Comparison between liquid skin adhesive and wound closure strip for skin closure after subcuticular suturing in single-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a single-center retrospective study in Korea
Kyeong Eui Kim, Yu Ra Jeon, Sung Uk Bae, Woon Kyung Jeong, Seong Kyu Baek
Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery.2024; 27(1): 14. CrossRef
The Latest Results and Future Directions of Research for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery in the Field of Colorectal Surgery
Min Ki Kim
The Ewha Medical Journal.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Laparoskopische Kontinuitätswiederherstellung nach der Hartmann-Operation
Andreas Türler, Nicola Cerasani, Haug-Lambert Loriz, Xenia Kemper, Moritz Weckbecker, Maike Derenbach, Anna Krappitz
coloproctology.2022; 44(1): 35. CrossRef

Impact of Adjuvant Therapy Type on Survival in Stage II/III Rectal Cancer Without Preoperative Chemoradiation: A Korean Multicenter Retrospective Study: Byung Mo Kang, Jeong-Heum Baek, Sun Jin Park, Seong Kyu Baek, Ki-Jae Park, Hong-Jo Choi, Byung-Noe Bae, Sun Keun Choi, Kap Tae Kim, Jin-Su Kim, Suk-Hwan Lee; Ann Coloproctol. 2018;34(3):144-151. Published online June 30, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2017.09.26.1

5,441 View
106 Download
4 Web of Science
4 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose
This study compared the oncologic impact of postoperative chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy on patients with rectal cancer without preoperative chemoradiation.
Methods
This retrospective study analyzed 713 patients with a mean follow-up of 58 months who had undergone radical resection for stage II/III rectal cancer without preoperative treatment in nine hospitals from January 2004 to December 2009. The study population was categorized a chemotherapy group (CG, n = 460) and a chemoradiotherapy group (CRG, n = 253). Five-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed, and independent factors predicting survival were identified.
Results
The patients in the CRG were significantly younger (P < 0.001) and had greater incidences of low rectal cancer (P < 0.001) and stage III disease (P < 0.001). Five-year OS (P = 0.024) and DFS (P = 0.012) were significantly higher in the CG for stage II disease; however, they were not significantly different for stage III disease. In the multivariate analysis, independent predictive factors were male sex, low rectal cancer and stage III disease for OS and male sex, abdominoperineal resection, stage III disease and tumor-positive circumferential margin for DFS. However, adjuvant therapy type did not independently affect OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.243; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.794–1.945; P = 0.341) and DFS (HR, 1.091; 95% CI, 0.810–1.470; P = 0.566).
Conclusion
Adjuvant therapy type did not affect survival of stage II/III rectal cancer patients without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. These results suggest that adjuvant therapy can be chosen based on the patient’s condition and the policies of the surgeons and hospital facilities.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Efficacies of radiotherapy in rectal cancer patients treated with total mesorectal excision or other types of surgery: an updated meta-analysis
Wenshu Wang, Runyuan Zhao, Xi Liang, Manjun Liu, Haiyan Bai, Jianli Ge, Binxi Yao, Zheng Zhi, Jianming He
Oncology Reviews.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Management and Outcomes of Pathologic Upstaging of Clinical Stage I Rectal Cancers: An Exploratory Analysis
Alisha Lussiez, Samantha J. Rivard, Kamren Hollingsworth, Sherif R.Z. Abdel-Misih, Philip S. Bauer, Katherine A. Hrebinko, Glen C. Balch, Lillias H. Maguire
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2023; 66(4): 543. CrossRef
The oncological outcomes of postoperative radiotherapy in patients with stage II and III upper rectal cancer
Ilknur ALSAN CETIN, Sıtkı Utku AKAY
Marmara Medical Journal.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Selection of Adjuvant Treatment Without Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Patients With Rectal Cancer: Room for Further Investigation
In Ja Park
Annals of Coloproctology.2018; 34(3): 109. CrossRef

Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Prophylactic Antibiotic Administration in Colorectal Surgery: A Survey of the Current Status in Korea: Byung Mo Kang, Kil Yeon Lee, Sun Jin Park, Suk-Hwan Lee; Ann Coloproctol. 2013;29(4):160-166. Published online August 29, 2013; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2013.29.4.160

4,881 View
48 Download
19 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose

The usefulness of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in colon surgery was recently challenged by many multicenter clinical trials and meta-analyses. The objectives of this study were to investigate current national opinions about MBP and prophylactic antibiotics (PA) and to provide preliminary data for developing future Korean guidelines for MBP and PA administration in colorectal surgery.

Methods

A questionnaire was mailed to 129 colorectal specialists. The questionnaires addressed the characteristics of the hospital, the MBP methods, and the uses of oral and intravenous antibiotics.

Results

A total of 73 questionnaires (56.6%) were returned. First, in regard to MBP methods, most surgeons (97.3%) used MBP for a mean of 1.36 days. Most surgeons (98.6%) implemented whole bowel irrigation and used polyethylene glycol (83.3%). Oral antibiotic use was indicated in over half (52.1%) of the responses, the average number of preoperative doses was three, and the mean time of administration was 24.2 hours prior to the operation. Finally, the majority of responders stated that they used intravenous antibiotics (95.9%). The responses demonstrated that second-generation cephalosporin-based regimens were most commonly prescribed, and 75% of the surgeons administered these regimens until three days after the operation.

Conclusion

The results indicate that most surgeons used MBP and intravenous antibiotics and that half of them administered oral PA in colorectal surgery preparations. The study recommends that the current Korean guidelines should be adapted to adequately reflect the medical status in Korea, to consider the medical environment of the various hospitals, and to establish more accurate and relevant guidelines.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

RETRACTED: A meta‐analysis of the risk factors for surgical site infection in patients with colorectal cancer
Yani Chen, Hua Guo, Tian Gao, Jiale Yu, Yujia Wang, Haiquan Yu
International Wound Journal.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Surgical Site Infections in Colorectal Cancer Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Surgical Approach and Associated Risk Factors
Valentin Calu, Catalin Piriianu, Adrian Miron, Valentin Titus Grigorean
Life.2024; 14(7): 850. CrossRef
Uncovering the Function of MBP and Antibiotics in Preventing Surgical Site Infections during Colorectal Procedures
Agnes Sara Shibu, Rojin G. Raj, Rohit Singh Deo
Journal of Coloproctology.2024; 44(03): e209. CrossRef
Single-Dose Versus Multiple-Dose Prophylactic Antibiotics in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis
Ga Yoon Ku, Beom-jin Kim, Ji Won Park, Min Jung Kim, Seung-Bum Ryoo, Seung-Yong Jeong, Kyu Joo Park
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation using conventional versus hyperosmolar polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution before laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer (TLUMP test): a phase III, multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiori
Tadashi Yoshida, Shigenori Homma, Nobuki Ichikawa, Yosuke Ohno, Yoichi Miyaoka, Hiroki Matsui, Ken Imaizumi, Hiroyuki Ishizu, Tohru Funakoshi, Masahiko Koike, Hirofumi Kon, Yo Kamiizumi, Yasuhiro Tani, Yoichi Minagawa Ito, Kazufumi Okada, Akinobu Taketomi
Journal of Gastroenterology.2023; 58(9): 883. CrossRef
The risk of surgical site infection of oral sulfate tablet versus sodium picosulfate for bowel preparation in colorectal cancer surgery: a randomized clinical trial
Sung Sil Park, Sung Chan Park, Dong-Eun Lee, Dong Woon Lee, Kiho Yu, Hyoung-Chul Park, Chang Won Hong, Dae Kyung Sohn, Kyung Su Han, Bun Kim, Byung Chang Kim, Jae Hwan Oh
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2022; 103(2): 96. CrossRef
Preoperative Elemental Diet before Laparoscopic Anterior Resection in Patients with Advanced Stenotic Rectal Cancer
Tadashi Yoshida, Shigenori Homma, Nobuki Ichikawa, Hiroaki Iijima, Akinobu Taketomi
Journal of the Anus, Rectum and Colon.2021; 5(4): 395. CrossRef
Orale Antibiotikaprophylaxe zur Darmdekontamination vor elektiver kolorektaler Chirurgie
S. Flemming, C.-T. Germer
Der Chirurg.2020; 91(2): 128. CrossRef
Role of Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery
Ik Yong Kim
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology.2020; 75(2): 79. CrossRef
Update on risk factors of surgical site infection in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Zhaohui Xu, Hui Qu, George Kanani, Zhong Guo, Yanying Ren, Xin Chen
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2020; 35(12): 2147. CrossRef
Does Mechanical Bowel Preparation Ameliorate Surgical Performance in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion?
Chang-Hoon Jeon, Han-Dong Lee, Nam-Su Chung
Global Spine Journal.2019; 9(7): 692. CrossRef
Mechanical Bowel Preparation Does Not Affect Clinical Severity of Anastomotic Leakage in Rectal Cancer Surgery
Woong Bae Ji, Koo Yong Hahn, Jung Myun Kwak, Dong Woo Kang, Se Jin Baek, Jin Kim, Seon Hahn Kim
World Journal of Surgery.2017; 41(5): 1366. CrossRef
Comparing Mechanical Bowel Preparation With Both Oral and Systemic Antibiotics Versus Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Systemic Antibiotics Alone for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection After Elective Colorectal Surgery
Min Chen, Xue Song, Liang-zhou Chen, Zhi-dong Lin, Xue-li Zhang
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2016; 59(1): 70. CrossRef
Early Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Neoplasms According to Clinical Indications
Eui-Gon Youk, Dae Kyng Sohn, Chang Won Hong, Seong Dae Lee, Kyung Su Han, Byung Chang Kim, Hee Jin Chang, Mi-Jung Kim
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2016; 59(5): 403. CrossRef
Benefit of mechanical bowel preparation prior to elective colorectal surgery: current insights
A. C. A. Murray, R. P. Kiran
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2016; 401(5): 573. CrossRef
Is mechanical bowel preparation still necessary for gynecologic laparoscopic surgery? A meta‐analysis
Huaping Huang, Haiyan Wang, Mei He
Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery.2015; 8(2): 171. CrossRef
Nationwide Analysis of Outcomes of Bowel Preparation in Colon Surgery
Zhobin Moghadamyeghaneh, Mark H. Hanna, Joseph C. Carmichael, Steven D. Mills, Alessio Pigazzi, Ninh T. Nguyen, Michael J. Stamos
Journal of the American College of Surgeons.2015; 220(5): 912. CrossRef
Influence of Shorter Duration of Prophylactic Antibiotic Use on the Incidence of Surgical Site Infection Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery
Youn Young Park, Chang Woo Kim, Sun Jin Park, Kil Yeon Lee, Jung Joo Lee, Hye Ok Lee, Suk-Hwan Lee
Annals of Coloproctology.2015; 31(6): 235. CrossRef
Mechanical Bowel Preparation: Keep It or Abandon It?
Hungdai Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2013; 29(4): 136. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search