Deborah S Keller1, Rodrigo Pedraza2, Juan Ramon Flores-Gonzalez3, Jean Paul LeFave3,4, Ali Mahmood3,4,5, Eric M Haas3,4,5. 1. Colorectal Surgical Associates, 7900 Fannin, Suite 2700, Houston, TX, 77054, USA. debby_keller@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Colorectal Surgical Associates, 7900 Fannin, Suite 2700, Houston, TX, 77054, USA. 4. Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Population-based studies evaluating laparoscopic colectomy and outcomes compared with open surgery have concentrated on elective resections. As such, data assessing non-elective laparoscopic colectomies are limited. Our goal was to evaluate the current usage and outcomes of laparoscopic in the urgent and emergent setting in the USA. METHODS: A national inpatient database was reviewed from 2008 to 2011 for right, left, and sigmoid colectomies in the non-elective setting. Cases were stratified by approach into open or laparoscopic groups. Demographics, perioperative clinical variables, and financial outcomes were compared across each group. RESULTS: A total of 22,719 non-elective colectomies were analyzed. The vast majority (95.8 %) was open. Most cases were performed in an urban setting at non-teaching hospitals by general surgeons. Colorectal surgeons were significantly more likely to perform a case laparoscopic than general surgeons (p < 0.001). Demographics were similar between open and laparoscopic groups; however, the disease distribution by approach varied, with significantly more severe cases in the open colectomy arm (p < 0.001). Cases performed laparoscopically had significantly better mortality and complication rates. Laparoscopic cases also had significantly improved outcomes, including shorter length of stay and hospital costs (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed less than 5 % of urgent and emergent colectomies in the USA are performed laparoscopically. Colorectal surgeons were more likely to approach a case laparoscopically than general surgeons. Outcomes following laparoscopic colectomy in this setting resulted in reduced length of stay, lower complication rates, and lower costs. Increased adoption of laparoscopy in the non-elective setting should be considered.
BACKGROUND: Population-based studies evaluating laparoscopic colectomy and outcomes compared with open surgery have concentrated on elective resections. As such, data assessing non-elective laparoscopic colectomies are limited. Our goal was to evaluate the current usage and outcomes of laparoscopic in the urgent and emergent setting in the USA. METHODS: A national inpatient database was reviewed from 2008 to 2011 for right, left, and sigmoid colectomies in the non-elective setting. Cases were stratified by approach into open or laparoscopic groups. Demographics, perioperative clinical variables, and financial outcomes were compared across each group. RESULTS: A total of 22,719 non-elective colectomies were analyzed. The vast majority (95.8 %) was open. Most cases were performed in an urban setting at non-teaching hospitals by general surgeons. Colorectal surgeons were significantly more likely to perform a case laparoscopic than general surgeons (p < 0.001). Demographics were similar between open and laparoscopic groups; however, the disease distribution by approach varied, with significantly more severe cases in the open colectomy arm (p < 0.001). Cases performed laparoscopically had significantly better mortality and complication rates. Laparoscopic cases also had significantly improved outcomes, including shorter length of stay and hospital costs (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed less than 5 % of urgent and emergent colectomies in the USA are performed laparoscopically. Colorectal surgeons were more likely to approach a case laparoscopically than general surgeons. Outcomes following laparoscopic colectomy in this setting resulted in reduced length of stay, lower complication rates, and lower costs. Increased adoption of laparoscopy in the non-elective setting should be considered.
Keywords:
Colon and rectal surgery; Emergency surgery; Emergent colectomy; Healthcare outcomes; Laparoscopic surgery
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: 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: Anthony J Senagore; Anthony J Warmuth; Conor P Delaney; Paris P Tekkis; Victor W Fazio Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Deborah S Keller; Bradley J Champagne; Harry L Reynolds; Sharon L Stein; Conor P Delaney Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Manish Chand; Muhammed R S Siddiqui; Ashish Gupta; Shahnawaz Rasheed; Paris Tekkis; Amjad Parvaiz; Alex H Mirnezami; Tahseen Qureshi Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Conor P Delaney; Peter W Marcello; Toyooki Sonoda; Paul Wise; Joel Bauer; Lee Techner Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Luv N Hajirawala; Varun Krishnan; Claudia Leonardi; Elyse R Bevier-Rawls; Guy R Orangio; Kurt G Davis; Aaron L Klinger; Jeffrey S Barton Journal: JSLS Date: 2022 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 1.789