Preview

Creative surgery and oncology

Advanced search

Hartmann’s Procedure Versus Primary Anastomosis with Protective Proximal Stoma after Distal Colon Resection and Anterior Rectal Resection in Elective and Delayed Surgical Interventions

https://doi.org/10.24060/2076-3093-2025-15-2-12-18

Abstract

Introduction. The optimal completion strategy for surgical interventions following resection of the distal colon and proximal rectum in elective and delayed operations remains a subject of active scientific debate, particularly in patients with perifocal abscesses, pelvic inflammatory disease, or inadequate preoperative bowel preparation. Aim. This study aims to compare the outcomes of Hartmann’s procedure, distal colon resection, and anterior resection of rectum with primary anastomosis and protective stoma in patients with the compensated and chronic forms of colonic obstruction, perifocal abscesses, the hypertrophy of anastomosed segments, and unsatisfactory preoperative bowel preparation. Materials and methods. The study included 97 patients. Group 1 comprised 43 patients who underwent Hartmann’s procedure. Group 2 included 54 patients who received either distal colon resection or anterior resection of rectum with primary anastomosis and protective stoma (preoperatively or during surgery). Results and discussion. Postoperative mortality was 2.3% in Group 1 and 1.8% in Group 2. Postoperative complications occurred in 13.9% and 16.7% of cases, respectively. Reconstructive operations were carried out in 79.1% of patients in Group 1 versus 100% in Group 2. Furthermore, Group 1 exhibited a higher incidence of inflammatory complications (21.1%) compared to Group 2 (15.1%). Conclusion. A primary anastomosis with a protective proximal stoma demonstrates comparable rates of anastomotic leakage, inflammatory complications, and mortality to Hartmann’s procedure in patients with colon tumors complicated by compensated intestinal obstruction, perifocal abscesses, and unsatisfactory preoperative bowel preparation (fecal contamination). Furthermore, the reconstructive phase following primary anastomosis is technically less complex and less traumatic, offering reduced surgical complexity and invasiveness.

About the Authors

V. Z. Totikov
North-Ossetian State Medical Academy
Russian Federation

Valeriy Z. Totikov Dr. Sci. (Med.), Prof., Department of Surgical Diseases No. 2

Vladikavkaz 



Z. V. Totikov
North-Ossetian State Medical Academy
Russian Federation

Zaurbek V. Totikov — Dr. Sci. (Med.), Prof., Department of Surgical Diseases No. 2

Vladikavkaz 



D. V. Toboev
North-Ossetian State Medical Academy
Russian Federation

David V. Toboev — Cand. Sci. (Med.), Department of Radiation Diagnostics with Radiation Therapy and Oncology

Vladikavkaz 



R. A. Khallaev
North-Ossetian State Medical Academy
Russian Federation

Ruslan A. Khallaev — Postgraduate Student, Department of Surgical Diseases No. 2

Vladikavkaz 



References

1. Bergamini C., Giordano A., Maltinti G., Alemanno G., Cianchi F., Coratti A., et al. Obstructive left side colon cancer: time for a tailored operative approach? Minerva Chir. 2020;75(4):244–54. DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4733.20.08299-1

2. Edomskis P.P., Hoek V.T., Stark P.W., Lambrichts D.P.V., Draaisma W.A., Consten E.C.J., et al. Hartmann’s procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or fecal peritonitis: Three-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Int J Surg. 2022;98:e106221. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106221

3. Hayden D.M., Mora Pinzon M.C., Francescatti A.B., Saclarides T.J. Patient factors may predict anastomotic complications after rectal cancer surgery: Anastomotic complications in rectal cancer. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2014;(13):11–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2014.12.002

4. Ho Y.H., Ashour M.A.T. Techniques for colorectal anastomosis. World J. Gastroenterol. 2010;16(13):1610–21. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i13.1610

5. Lambrichts D.P., Edomskis P.P., van der Bogt R.D., Kleinrensink G.J., Bemelman W.A., Lange J.F. Sigmoid resection with primary anastomosis versus the Hartmann’s procedure for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or fecal peritonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2020;35(8):1371–86. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03617-8

6. Totikov V.Z., Totikov Z.V. Colon cancer complicated by obstruction. Vladikavkaz: SOSMA; 2013 (In Russ.).

7. Merabishvili G., Mosidze B., Demetrashvili Z., Agdgomelashvili I. Comparison of Hartmann’s procedure versus resection with primary anastomosis in management of left sided colon cancer obstruction: a prospective cohort study. Georgian Med News. 2022;324:21–5. PMID: 35417858

8. Cherkasov M.F., Dmitriev A.V., Groshilin V.S., Pereskokov S.V., Kozyrevskiy M.A., Urupina A.A. Failure of colorectal anastomosis: risk factors, prevention, diagnosis, therapeutic tactics. Russian Journal of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Coloproctology. 2019;29(2):27–34 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.22416/1382-4376-2019-29-2-27-34

9. Totikov Z.V., Totikov V.Z., Kachmazov A.K., Medoev V.V., Kalitsova M.V., Malsagov R.U. Method of preventing anastomosis failure after anterior resection of the rectum and reconstructive surgery. Kuban Scientific Medical Bulletin. 2013;(4(139):109–11 (In Russ.).

10. Totikov Z.V., Totikov V.Z., Ibragimov L.A., Abdurzakov M.A., Taramov U.U., Sarbasheva M.M., et al. Colorectal anastomotic leak: state of the problem. Modern science: actual problems of theory and practice. Series of “Natural and technical sciences”. 2022;9:271–9 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.37882/2223-2966.2022.09.41

11. Galetin T., Galetin A., Vestweber K.H., Rink A.D. Systematic review and comparison of national and international guidelines on diverticular disease. Int J Color Dis. 2018;33:261–72. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-017-2960-z

12. Vermeulen J., Gosselink M.P., Busschbach J.J., Lange J.F. Avoiding or reversing Hartmann’s procedure provides improved quality of life after perforated diverticulitis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:651–7. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-010-1155-5

13. Hallam S., Mothe B.S, Tirumulaju R.. Hartmann’s procedure, reversal and rate of stoma-free survival. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2018;100(4):301–7. DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2018.0006

14. Kartal K., Citgez B., Koksal M.H., Besler E., Akgun İ.E., Mihmanli M. Colostomy reversal after a Hartmann’s procedure Effects of experience on mortality and morbidity. Ann Ital Chir. 2019;90:539–44. PMID: 31270277

15. Farah M., Sorelli P., Kerwat R., Oke O., Ng P. Correlation between ASA Grade with reversal of Hartmann’s procedure — a retrospective study. J Med Life. 2021;14(6):756–61. DOI: 10.25122/jml-2020-0158


Review

For citations:


Totikov V.Z., Totikov Z.V., Toboev D.V., Khallaev R.A. Hartmann’s Procedure Versus Primary Anastomosis with Protective Proximal Stoma after Distal Colon Resection and Anterior Rectal Resection in Elective and Delayed Surgical Interventions. Creative surgery and oncology. 2025;15(2):12-18. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24060/2076-3093-2025-15-2-12-18

Views: 24


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2076-3093 (Print)
ISSN 2307-0501 (Online)