Christina M Papageorge1, Qianqian Zhao2, Eugene F Foley1, Bruce A Harms1, Charles P Heise1, Evie H Carchman1, Gregory D Kennedy3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. Electronic address: kennedyg@surgery.wisc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic and open approaches to colon resection have equivalent long-term outcomes and oncologic integrity for the treatment of colon cancer. Differences in short-term outcomes should therefore help to guide surgeons in their choice of operation. We hypothesized that minimally invasive colectomy is associated with superior short-term outcomes compared to traditional open colectomy in the setting of colon cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing nonemergent colectomy for colon cancer in 2012 and 2013 were selected from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) targeted colectomy participant use file. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on operative approach-open versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Univariate, multivariate, and propensity-adjusted multivariate analyses were performed to compare postoperative outcomes between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 11,031 patients were identified for inclusion in the study, with an overall MIS rate of 65.3% (n = 7200). On both univariate and multivariate analysis, MIS approach was associated with fewer postoperative complications and lower mortality. In the risk-adjusted multivariate analysis, MIS approach was associated with an odds ratio of 0.598 for any postoperative morbidity compared to open (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study of patients undergoing colectomy for colon cancer demonstrates significantly improved outcomes associated with a MIS approach, even when controlling for baseline differences in illness severity. When feasible, minimally invasive colectomy should be considered gold standard for the surgical treatment of colon cancer.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic and open approaches to colon resection have equivalent long-term outcomes and oncologic integrity for the treatment of colon cancer. Differences in short-term outcomes should therefore help to guide surgeons in their choice of operation. We hypothesized that minimally invasive colectomy is associated with superior short-term outcomes compared to traditional open colectomy in the setting of colon cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients undergoing nonemergent colectomy for colon cancer in 2012 and 2013 were selected from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) targeted colectomy participant use file. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on operative approach-open versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Univariate, multivariate, and propensity-adjusted multivariate analyses were performed to compare postoperative outcomes between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 11,031 patients were identified for inclusion in the study, with an overall MIS rate of 65.3% (n = 7200). On both univariate and multivariate analysis, MIS approach was associated with fewer postoperative complications and lower mortality. In the risk-adjusted multivariate analysis, MIS approach was associated with an odds ratio of 0.598 for any postoperative morbidity compared to open (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study of patients undergoing colectomy for colon cancer demonstrates significantly improved outcomes associated with a MIS approach, even when controlling for baseline differences in illness severity. When feasible, minimally invasive colectomy should be considered gold standard for the surgical treatment of colon cancer.
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: 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: James Fleshman; Daniel J Sargent; Erin Green; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; Heidi Nelson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: David G Jayne; Pierre J Guillou; Helen Thorpe; Philip Quirke; Joanne Copeland; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anne F Peery; Nicholas J Shaheen; Katherine S Cools; Todd H Baron; Mark Koruda; Joseph A Galanko; Ian S Grimm Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Gabriela Batista Rodríguez; Andrea Balla; Santiago Corradetti; Carmen Martinez; Pilar Hernández; Jesús Bollo; Eduard M Targarona Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Erik J DeAngelis; James A Zebley; Ikechukwu S Ileka; Sangrag Ganguli; Armon Panahi; Richard L Amdur; Khashayar Vaziri; Juliet Lee; Hope T Jackson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Peter Cram; Mark E Cohen; Clifford Ko; Bruce E Landon; Bruce Hall; Timothy D Jackson Journal: World J Surg Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: N C A Vermeer; Y Backes; H S Snijders; E Bastiaannet; G J Liefers; L M G Moons; C J H van de Velde; K C M J Peeters Journal: BJS Open Date: 2018-12-24