Literature DB >> 26092020

National disparities in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer.

Emmanuel Gabriel1, Pragatheeshwar Thirunavukarasu2, Eisar Al-Sukhni2, Kristopher Attwood3, Steven J Nurkin2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Social and racial disparities have been identified as factors contributing to differences in access to care and oncologic outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate national disparities in minimally invasive surgery (MIS), both laparoscopic and robotic, across different racial, socioeconomic and geographic populations of patients with rectal cancer.
METHODS: We utilized the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database to identify patients with rectal cancer from 2004 to 2011 who had undergone definitive surgical procedures through either an open, laparoscopic or robotic approach. Inclusion criteria included only one malignancy and no adjuvant therapy. Multivariate analysis was performed to investigate differences in age, gender, race, income, education, insurance coverage, geographic setting and hospital type in relation to the surgical approach.
RESULTS: A total of 8633 patients were identified. The initial surgical approach included 46.5% open (4016), 50.9% laparoscopic (4393) and 2.6% robotic (224). In evaluating type of insurance coverage, patients with private insurance were most likely to undergo laparoscopic surgery [OR (odds ratio) 1.637, 95% CI 1.178-2.275], although there was a less statistically significant association with robotic surgery (OR 2.167, 95% CI 0.663-7.087). Patients who had incomes greater than $46,000 and received treatment at an academic center were more likely to undergo MIS (either laparoscopic or robotic). Race, education and geographic setting were not statistically significant characteristics for surgical approach in patients with rectal cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive approaches for rectal cancer comprise approximately 53% of surgical procedures in patients not treated with adjuvant therapy. Robotics is associated with patients who have higher incomes and private insurance and undergo surgery in academic centers.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Disparities; Rectal cancer; Robotic surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26092020      PMCID: PMC5322799          DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4296-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  39 in total

1.  The first national examination of outcomes and trends in robotic surgery in the United States.

Authors:  Jamie E Anderson; David C Chang; J Kellogg Parsons; Mark A Talamini
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 6.113

2.  Laparoscopic vs open colectomy for colon cancer: results from a large nationwide population-based analysis.

Authors:  Scott R Steele; Tommy A Brown; Robert M Rush; Matthew J Martin
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2007-09-07       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 3.  Quality training in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: does it improve clinical outcome?

Authors:  M Pitiakoudis; L Michailidis; P Zezos; G Kouklakis; C Simopoulos
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 4.  Safe anastomosis in laparoscopic and robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a narrative review and outcomes study from an expert tertiary center.

Authors:  S A L Asari; M S Cho; N K Kim
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 4.424

5.  National disparities in laparoscopic colorectal procedures for colon cancer.

Authors:  Monirah Alnasser; Eric B Schneider; Susan L Gearhart; Elizabeth C Wick; Sandy H Fang; Adil H Haider; Jonathan E Efron
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Disparities in access to care at high-volume institutions for uro-oncologic procedures.

Authors:  Quoc-Dien Trinh; Maxine Sun; Jesse Sammon; Marco Bianchi; Shyam Sukumar; Khurshid R Ghani; Wooju Jeong; Ali Dabaja; Shahrokh F Shariat; Paul Perrotte; Piyush K Agarwal; Craig G Rogers; James O Peabody; Mani Menon; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Disparities in the use of minimally invasive surgery for colorectal disease.

Authors:  Celia N Robinson; Courtney J Balentine; Shubhada Sansgiry; David H Berger
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 3.452

8.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective pilot study.

Authors:  Marcos Gómez Ruiz; Ignacio Martín Parra; Carlos Manuel Palazuelos; Joaquin Alonso Martín; Carmen Cagigas Fernández; Julio Castillo Diego; Manuel Gómez Fleitas
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.585

9.  A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer.

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

Review 10.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic simple anatomic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Manish N Patel; Ashok K Hemal
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2014-08-30       Impact factor: 2.241

View more
  17 in total

1.  Diffusion of robotic-assisted laparoscopic technology across specialties: a national study from 2008 to 2013.

Authors:  Yen-Yi Juo; Aditya Mantha; Ahmad Abiri; Anne Lin; Erik Dutson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-25       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Insurance Status and Hospital Payer Mix Are Linked With Variation in Metastatic Site Resection in Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancers.

Authors:  Mark A Healy; Jason C Pradarelli; Robert W Krell; Scott E Regenbogen; Pasithorn A Suwanabol
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.585

3.  Systematic review of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Christoph Holmer; Martin E Kreis
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Trends in the diffusion of robotic surgery in prostate, uterus, and colorectal procedures: a retrospective population-based study.

Authors:  Gary Chung; Piet Hinoul; Paul Coplan; Andrew Yoo
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2020-06-20

5.  Disparities in colostomy reversal after Hartmann's procedure for diverticulitis.

Authors:  M C Turner; M D Talbott; C Reed; Z Sun; M L Cox; B Ezekian; K L Sherman; C R Mantyh; J Migaly
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2019-04-30       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 6.  Review of Colorectal Studies Using the National Cancer Database.

Authors:  Katherine A Kelley; V Liana Tsikitis
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2019-01-08

7.  Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer in the US: a skewed population.

Authors:  Asya Ofshteyn; Katherine Bingmer; Christopher W Towe; Emily Steinhagen; Sharon L Stein
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Do specific operative approaches and insurance status impact timely access to colorectal cancer care?

Authors:  Brian D Lo; George Q Zhang; Miloslawa Stem; Rebecca Sahyoun; Jonathan E Efron; Bashar Safar; Chady Atallah
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-08-19       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Age-related rates of colorectal cancer and the factors associated with overall survival.

Authors:  Emmanuel Gabriel; Kristopher Attwood; Eisar Al-Sukhni; Deborah Erwin; Patrick Boland; Steven Nurkin
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2018-02

10.  Disparities in major surgery for esophagogastric cancer among hospitals by case volume.

Authors:  Emmanuel Gabriel; Sumana Narayanan; Kristopher Attwood; Steven Hochwald; Moshim Kukar; Steven Nurkin
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2018-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.