Yen-Yi Juo1, Omar Hyder1, Adil H Haider1, Melissa Camp1, Anne Lidor1, Nita Ahuja2. 1. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland2Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Minimally invasive colectomies are increasingly popular options for colon resection. OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative outcomes and costs of robot-assisted colectomy (RC), laparoscopic colectomy (LC), and open colectomy (OC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The US Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was used to examine outcomes and costs before and after propensity score matching across the 3 surgical approaches. This study involved a sample of US hospital discharges from 2008 to 2010 and all patients 21 years of age or older who underwent elective colectomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES In-hospital mortality, complications, ostomy rates, conversion to open procedure, length of stay, discharge disposition, and cost. RESULTS: Of the 244129 colectomies performed during the study period, 126284 (51.7%) were OCs, 116261 (47.6%) were LCs, and 1584 (0.6%) were RCs. In comparison with OC, LC was associated with a lower mortality rate (0.4% vs 2.0%), lower complication rate (19.8% vs 33.2%), lower ostomy rate (3.5 vs 13.0%), shorter median length of stay (4 vs 6 days), a higher routine discharge rate (86.1% vs 68.4%), and lower overall cost than OC ($11742 vs $13666) (all P<.05). Comparison between RC and LC showed no significant differences with respect to in-hospital mortality (0.0% vs 0.7%), complication rates (14.7% vs 18.5%), ostomy rates (3.0% vs 5.1%), conversions to open procedure (5.7% vs 9.9%), and routine discharge rates (88.7% vs 88.5%) (all P>.05). However, RC incurred a higher overall hospitalization cost than LC ($14847 vs $11966, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this nationwide comparison of minimally invasive approaches for colon resection, LC demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes and lower cost than OC. Robot-assisted colectomy was equivalent in most clinical outcomes to LC but incurred a higher cost.
IMPORTANCE: Minimally invasive colectomies are increasingly popular options for colon resection. OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative outcomes and costs of robot-assisted colectomy (RC), laparoscopic colectomy (LC), and open colectomy (OC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The US Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was used to examine outcomes and costs before and after propensity score matching across the 3 surgical approaches. This study involved a sample of US hospital discharges from 2008 to 2010 and all patients 21 years of age or older who underwent elective colectomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES In-hospital mortality, complications, ostomy rates, conversion to open procedure, length of stay, discharge disposition, and cost. RESULTS: Of the 244129 colectomies performed during the study period, 126284 (51.7%) were OCs, 116261 (47.6%) were LCs, and 1584 (0.6%) were RCs. In comparison with OC, LC was associated with a lower mortality rate (0.4% vs 2.0%), lower complication rate (19.8% vs 33.2%), lower ostomy rate (3.5 vs 13.0%), shorter median length of stay (4 vs 6 days), a higher routine discharge rate (86.1% vs 68.4%), and lower overall cost than OC ($11742 vs $13666) (all P<.05). Comparison between RC and LC showed no significant differences with respect to in-hospital mortality (0.0% vs 0.7%), complication rates (14.7% vs 18.5%), ostomy rates (3.0% vs 5.1%), conversions to open procedure (5.7% vs 9.9%), and routine discharge rates (88.7% vs 88.5%) (all P>.05). However, RC incurred a higher overall hospitalization cost than LC ($14847 vs $11966, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this nationwide comparison of minimally invasive approaches for colon resection, LC demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes and lower cost than OC. Robot-assisted colectomy was equivalent in most clinical outcomes to LC but incurred a higher cost.
Authors: Franziska Huettner; Paul E Pacheco; Jamie L Doubet; Michael J Ryan; Danuta I Dynda; David L Crawford Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2011-05-21 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Shyam Sukumar; Maxine Sun; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Ariella A Friedman; Felix K Chun; Jesse Sammon; Khurshid R Ghani; Praful Ravi; Marco Bianchi; Wooju Jeong; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jens Hansen; James O Peabody; Jack S Elder; Mani Menon; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jeremy A Rassen; Abhi A Shelat; Jessica Myers; Robert J Glynn; Kenneth J Rothman; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Celia N Robinson; G John Chen; Courtney J Balentine; Shubhada Sansgiry; Christy L Marshall; Daniel A Anaya; Avo Artinyan; Daniel Albo; David H Berger Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-01-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sami A Chadi; Abe Fingerhut; Mariana Berho; Steven R DeMeester; James W Fleshman; Neil H Hyman; David A Margolin; Joseph E Martz; Elisabeth C McLemore; Daniela Molena; Martin I Newman; Janice F Rafferty; Bashar Safar; Anthony J Senagore; Oded Zmora; Steven D Wexner Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Zhobin Moghadamyeghaneh; Mark H Hanna; Joseph C Carmichael; Alessio Pigazzi; Michael J Stamos; Steven Mills Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam; Kingshuk Choudhury; Paolo Goffredo; Shelby D Reed; Dan Blazer; Sanziana A Roman; Julie A Sosa Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.352