Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42611102›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2026

Does robotics add value in Hartmann's reversal? A PRISMA-based systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes.

A Abdelsamad, Y Khalil, K Mohamed, A Idriss Ibrahim, A Elgamasy, K A Abdelrahman, T Sprenger, T A A M Habeeb, T Herzog, F Gebauer

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

A AbdelsamadDepartment of Surgery II, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany. ahmed6361410@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5451-4504
Y KhalilFaculty of Medicine, Capital University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-3711-5412
K MohamedDepartment of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0139-2873
A Idriss IbrahimMedical intern, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-0118-9177
A ElgamasyFaculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-4169-5271
K A AbdelrahmanFaculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-9805-1702
T SprengerDepartment of Bariatric Surgery, Knappschaft-Hospital, Recklinghausen, Germany.
T A A M HabeebDepartment of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
T Herzog *Department of Surgery, Ruhr University of Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
F Gebauer *Department of Surgery II, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReversal of Hartmann's procedure is technically demanding and occasionally performed via open surgery, which is associated with substantial morbidity. Minimally invasive approaches have expanded, yet comparative evidence between robotic and laparoscopic reversal remains limited. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare perioperative outcomes of both approaches.

methodsDatabases were searched through 20 July 2026. Studies reporting outcomes after laparoscopic and/or robotic Hartmann's reversal were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed with preplanned subgroup comparisons (robotic versus laparoscopic). Pooled estimates were reported with 95% confidence intervals; heterogeneity was assessed using I

resultsSixty-five studies comprising >10,000 patients were included. Operative time was significantly longer with robotics (274.6 versus 176.04 min; P = 0.018). Robotic studies reported lower pooled surgical site infection rates (4% versus 6%; P = 0.02) and shorter length of hospital stay (4.2 versus 8.0 days; P < 0.001). Conversion to open surgery pooled rate was lower in robotic studies (7% versus 14%), yet the subgroup difference did not reach statistical significance.

conclusionsRobotic Hartmann's reversal was associated with longer operative time, while pooled analyses showed lower surgical site infection rates and shorter hospital stay than pooled laparoscopic reversal. However, the current robotic evidence base remains limited and is largely derived from indirect comparisons and pooled single-arm analyses. Higher-quality comparative data are needed to define patient selection, cost, and benefit.

Indexed as

ColostomyLaparoscopyReoperationRobotic Surgical ProceduresConversion to Open SurgeryFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeHartmann reversalLaparoscopicMeta-analysisPerioperative outcomesRobotic-assisted

Identifiers

PMID42611102
PMCPMC13486091

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.