Literature DB >> 27145311

Comparison of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Colectomies Using a Large National Database: Outcomes and Trends Related to Surgery Center Volume.

Heather L Yeo1, Abby J Isaacs, Jonathan S Abelson, Jeffrey W Milsom, Art Sedrakyan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that high-volume centers and laparoscopic techniques improve outcomes of colectomy. These evidence-based measures have been slow to be accepted, and current trends are unknown. In addition, the current rates and outcomes of robotic surgery are unknown.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine current national trends in the use of minimally invasive surgery and to evaluate hospital volume trends over time.
DESIGN: This was a retrospective study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: Using the National Inpatient Sample, we evaluated trends in patients undergoing elective open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomies from 2009 to 2012. Patient and institutional characteristics were evaluated and outcomes compared between groups using multivariate hierarchical-logistic regression and nonparametric tests. The National Inpatient Sample includes patient and hospital demographics, admission and treating diagnoses, inpatient procedures, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, hospital charges, and discharge status. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In-hospital mortality and postoperative complications of surgery were measured.
RESULTS: A total of 509,029 patients underwent elective colectomy from 2009 to 2012. Of those 266,263 (52.3%) were open, 235,080 (46.2%) laparoscopic, and 7686 (1.5%) robotic colectomies. The majority of minimal access surgery is still being performed at high-volume compared with low-volume centers (37.5% vs 28.0% and 44.0% vs 23.0%; p < 0.001). A total of 36% of colectomies were for cancer. The number of robotic colectomies has quadrupled from 702 in 2009 to 3390 (1.1%) in 2012. After adjustment, the rate of iatrogenic complications was higher for robotic surgery (OR = 1.73 (95% CI, 1.20-2.47)), and the median cost of robotic surgery was higher, at $15,649 (interquartile range, $11,840-$20,183) vs $12,071 (interquartile range, $9338-$16,203; p < 0.001 for laparoscopic). LIMITATIONS: This study may be limited by selection bias by surgeons regarding the choice of patient management. In addition, there are limitations in the measures of disease severity and, because the database relies on billing codes, there may be inaccuracies such as underreporting.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the majority of colectomies in the United States are still performed open, although rates of laparoscopy continue to increase. There is a trend toward increased volume of laparoscopic procedures at specialty centers. The role of robotics is still being defined, in light of higher cost, lack of clinical benefit, and increased iatrogenic complications, albeit comparable overall complications, as compared with laparoscopic colectomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27145311     DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000580

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  32 in total

1.  Robotic versus laparoscopic elective colectomy for left side diverticulitis: a propensity score-matched analysis of the NSQIP database.

Authors:  Mohammed H Al-Temimi; Bindupriya Chandrasekaran; Johan Agapian; Walter R Peters; Katrina O Wells
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2019-06-23       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Clinical and Financial Outcomes After Robotic and Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection.

Authors:  Ahmed M Al-Mazrou; Onur Baser; Ravi P Kiran
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 3.  The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery.

Authors:  Harith H Mushtaq; Shinil K Shah; Amit K Agarwal
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2019-03-06

4.  Comparative effectiveness of human scope assistant versus robotic scope holder in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Yasushi Ohmura; Hiromitsu Suzuki; Kazutoshi Kotani; Atsushi Teramoto
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  The role of robotics in colorectal surgery.

Authors:  P C Sivathondan; D G Jayne
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.891

6.  Complications, length of stay, and cost of cholecystectomy in kidney transplant recipients.

Authors:  Sandra R DiBrito; Christine E Haugen; Courtenay M Holscher; Israel O Olorundare; Yewande Alimi; Dorry L Segev; Jacqueline Garonzik-Wang
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 2.565

7.  Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for stage I-III colon cancer: oncologic and long-term survival outcomes.

Authors:  Katelin A Mirkin; Audrey S Kulaylat; Christopher S Hollenbeak; Evangelos Messaris
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  The cost of conversion in robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Robert K Cleary; Andrew J Mullard; Jane Ferraro; Scott E Regenbogen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 9.  Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice.

Authors:  Matthew Zelhart; Andreas M Kaiser
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  The effect of metabolic syndrome on postoperative outcomes following laparoscopic colectomy.

Authors:  A Zarzavadjian Le Bian; C Denet; N Tabchouri; H Levard; R Besson; T Perniceni; R Costi; P Wind; D Fuks; B Gayet
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 3.781

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.