Jason A Kemp1, Samuel R G Finlayson. 1. Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756, USA. Jason.Kemp@Hitchcock.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past 5 years, several studies have demonstrated that laparoscopic colon resection is an acceptable and perhaps preferable alternative to open resection for both benign diseases and cancer. The extent to which laparoscopic colon resections are used nationally is not known. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify laparoscopic and open elective colon resections performed in the United States each year from 2000 through 2004. The trends in adoption of the laparoscopic technique for each type of colon resection and for the most common diagnoses were identified, and differences in patient and provider characteristics were examined. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2004, the proportion of colon resections performed laparoscopically increased from 3% to 6.5%. The proportion performed for cancer increased from 1.4% to 4.3%, and for benign disease from 4.6% to 8.2%. Patients treated laparoscopically tended to be younger (median age, 61 years vs 66 years; p < 0.001) and to have fewer comorbidities (Charlson score of zero for 58.1% vs 37%; p < 0.001). Laparoscopic colon resections were more widely adopted in teaching versus nonteaching hospitals (5.1% vs 3.7%; p < 0.001) and in urban versus rural hospitals (4.7% vs 2.2%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although the proportion of colon resections performed laparoscopically increased in the first half of this decade, it has remained very low. This trend is similar across procedure types and diagnoses. It remains to be seen whether greater patient demand and more recent trials will result in wider adoption of the laparoscopic approach.
BACKGROUND: Over the past 5 years, several studies have demonstrated that laparoscopic colon resection is an acceptable and perhaps preferable alternative to open resection for both benign diseases and cancer. The extent to which laparoscopic colon resections are used nationally is not known. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify laparoscopic and open elective colon resections performed in the United States each year from 2000 through 2004. The trends in adoption of the laparoscopic technique for each type of colon resection and for the most common diagnoses were identified, and differences in patient and provider characteristics were examined. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2004, the proportion of colon resections performed laparoscopically increased from 3% to 6.5%. The proportion performed for cancer increased from 1.4% to 4.3%, and for benign disease from 4.6% to 8.2%. Patients treated laparoscopically tended to be younger (median age, 61 years vs 66 years; p < 0.001) and to have fewer comorbidities (Charlson score of zero for 58.1% vs 37%; p < 0.001). Laparoscopic colon resections were more widely adopted in teaching versus nonteaching hospitals (5.1% vs 3.7%; p < 0.001) and in urban versus rural hospitals (4.7% vs 2.2%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although the proportion of colon resections performed laparoscopically increased in the first half of this decade, it has remained very low. This trend is similar across procedure types and diagnoses. It remains to be seen whether greater patient demand and more recent trials will result in wider adoption of the laparoscopic approach.
Authors: Marco Braga; Andrea Vignali; Luca Gianotti; Walter Zuliani; Giovanni Radaelli; Paola Gruarin; Paolo Dellabona; Valerio Di Carlo Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ka Lau Leung; Samuel P Y Kwok; Steve C W Lam; Janet F Y Lee; Raymond Y C Yiu; Simon S M Ng; Paul B S Lai; Wan Yee Lau Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-04-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Steve Kwon; Richard Billingham; Ellen Farrokhi; Michael Florence; Daniel Herzig; Karen Horvath; Terry Rogers; Scott Steele; Rebecca Symons; Richard Thirlby; Mark Whiteford; David R Flum Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Wissam J Halabi; Celeste Y Kang; Mehraneh D Jafari; Vinh Q Nguyen; Joseph C Carmichael; Steven Mills; Michael J Stamos; Alessio Pigazzi Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Ashley Meilleur; S V Subramanian; Jesse J Plascak; James L Fisher; Electra D Paskett; Elizabeth B Lamont Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 4.254