Oncological outcomes of planned and unplanned low Hartmann's procedure and restorative low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a population-based cross-sectional study
- PMID: 41276685
- DOI: 10.1007/s10151-025-03169-5
Oncological outcomes of planned and unplanned low Hartmann's procedure and restorative low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a population-based cross-sectional study
Abstract
Background: In the Netherlands, approximately 15% of patients with rectal cancer undergo a low Hartmann's procedure (low-HP). This is often preoperatively planned to avoid poor functional outcome or complications, but might be unplanned as a result of intraoperative difficulties. Low-HPs seem to be associated with worse oncological outcomes.
Methods: All patients who underwent either restorative low anterior resection (rLAR), planned low-HP, or unplanned low-HP for primary rectal cancer in 2016 were included from a nationwide cohort. Main outcomes were 4-year local recurrence (LR) rate and disease-free survival (DFS).
Results: Of 2043 patients, 1704 underwent rLAR (83.4%), 253 planned low-HP (12.4%), and 86 unplanned low-HP (4.2%). Among intended rLAR patients (n = 1790), independent risk factors for unplanned low-HP were older age, higher body mass index (BMI), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and more distal tumor location. Oncological outcomes after low-HPs were worse than after rLARs (LR 13.7% vs 5.6%, DFS 54.7% vs 71.8%, both p < 0.001), but similar for unplanned and planned low-HP. In multivariable analysis, unplanned and planned low-HP were not associated with LR or DFS, but R1 resection was (HR 6.6 (4.1-10.6), HR 3.0 (2.2-4.0), respectively). In R1 resections, the distal margin was more often involved after low-HP (70.0% vs 28.6%, p = 0.013) compared to rLAR.
Conclusion: Poor outcomes in univariable analysis after low-HP appear to be associated with more challenging procedures and increased risk of involved resection margin rather than the low-HP itself. In case of expected difficulties, an extralevator abdominoperineal excision or referral to an expert center might be an alternative to improve resection margins.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05539417, retrospectively registered on September 16, 2022.
Keywords: Conversion to open surgery; Minimally invasive surgical procedures; Rectal cancer; Resection margins.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics approval: The Medical Ethics Committee of the Amsterdam UMC approved this study and determined it to be exempt from the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. Local institutional review boards approved the study execution and determined patient consent procedures.
References
-
- Heald RJ, Moran BJ, Ryall RD, Sexton R, MacFarlane JK (1998) Rectal cancer: the Basingstoke experience of total mesorectal excision, 1978–1997. Arch Surg 133(8):894–898
-
- Anderin C, Martling A, Hellborg H, Holm T (2010) A population-based study on outcome in relation to the type of resection in low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 53(5):753–760
-
- Ortiz H, Wibe A, Ciga MA et al (2014) Multicenter study of outcome in relation to the type of resection in rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 57(7):811–822
-
- Rullier E, Denost Q, Vendrely V, Rullier A, Laurent C (2013) Low rectal cancer: classification and standardization of surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 56(5):560–567
-
- Seah DW, Ibrahim S, Tay KH (2005) Hartmann procedure: is it still relevant today? ANZ J Surg 75(6):436–440
Associated data
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
