Literature DB >> 27655383

Laparoscopic versus robotic colectomy: a national surgical quality improvement project analysis.

Scott C Dolejs1, Joshua A Waters2, Eugene P Ceppa2, Ben L Zarzaur2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Robotic colorectal surgery is being increasingly adopted. Our objective was to compare early postoperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic colectomy in a nationally representative sample.
METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Colectomy Targeted Dataset from 2012 to 2014 was used for this study. Adult patients undergoing elective colectomy with an anastomosis were included. Patients were stratified based on location of colorectal resection (low anterior resection (LAR), left-sided resection, or right-sided resection). Bivariate data analysis was performed, and logistic regression modeling was conducted to calculate risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes.
RESULTS: There were a total of 25,998 laparoscopic colectomies (30 % LAR's, 45 % left-sided, and 25 % right-sided) and 1484 robotic colectomies (54 % LAR's, 28 % left-sided, and 18 % right-sided). The risk-adjusted overall morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality were similar between laparoscopic and robotic approaches in all anastomotic groups. Patients undergoing robotic LAR had a lower conversion rate (OR 0.47, 95 % CI 1.20-1.76) and postoperative sepsis rate (OR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.29-0.85) but a higher rate of diverting ostomies (OR 1.45, 95 % CI 1.20-1.76). Robotic right-sided colectomies had significantly lower conversion rates (OR 0.58, 95 % CI 0.34-0.96). Robotic colectomy in all groups was associated with a longer operative time (by 40 min) and a decreased length of stay (by 0.5 days).
CONCLUSIONS: In a nationally representative sample comparing laparoscopic and robotic colectomies, the overall morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality between groups are similar while length of stay was shorter by 0.5 days in the robotic colectomy group. Robotic LAR was associated with lower conversion rates and lower septic complications. However, robotic LAR is also associated with a significantly higher rate of diverting ostomy. The reason for this relationship is unclear. Surgeon factors, patient factors, and technical factors should be considered in future studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ACS-NSQIP; Colorectal surgery; Laparoscopic surgery; Robotic surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27655383     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5239-5

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


  29 in total

1.  SAGES evidence-based guidelines for the laparoscopic resection of curable colon and rectal cancer.

Authors:  Marc Zerey; Lisa Martin Hawver; Ziad Awad; Dimitrios Stefanidis; William Richardson; Robert D Fanelli
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-12-13       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  The multiphasic learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery.

Authors:  Kevin Kaity Sng; Masayasu Hara; Jae-Won Shin; Byung-Eun Yoo; Kyung-Sook Yang; Seon-Hahn Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Is minimally invasive colon resection better than traditional approaches?: First comprehensive national examination with propensity score matching.

Authors:  Yen-Yi Juo; Omar Hyder; Adil H Haider; Melissa Camp; Anne Lidor; Nita Ahuja
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 14.766

4.  Analyzing clinical outcomes in laparoscopic right vs. left colectomy in colon cancer patients using the NSQIP database.

Authors:  Valentine Nfonsam; Hassan Aziz; Viraj Pandit; Mazhar Khalil; Jana Jandova; Bellal Joseph
Journal:  Cancer Treat Commun       Date:  2016

5.  Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Colectomy Results in Increased Operative Time Without Improved Perioperative Outcomes.

Authors:  Brian Ezekian; Zhifei Sun; Mohamed A Adam; Jina Kim; Megan C Turner; Brian F Gilmore; Cecilia T Ong; Christopher R Mantyh; John Migaly
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: comparison of right-sided and left-sided resections.

Authors:  Paris P Tekkis; Antony J Senagore; Conor P Delaney; Victor W Fazio
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, focusing on rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yongzhi Yang; Feng Wang; Peng Zhang; Chenzhang Shi; Yang Zou; Huanlong Qin; Yanlei Ma
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era.

Authors:  Joshua A Tyler; Justin P Fox; Mayur M Desai; W Brian Perry; Sean C Glasgow
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.585

9.  Effect of Regional Hospital Competition and Hospital Financial Status on the Use of Robotic-Assisted Surgery.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Ana I Tergas; June Y Hou; William M Burke; Ling Chen; Jim C Hu; Alfred I Neugut; Cande V Ananth; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 14.766

10.  Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Huirong Xu; Jianning Li; Yanlai Sun; Zengjun Li; Yanan Zhen; Bin Wang; Zhongfa Xu
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 2.754

View more
  25 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

3.  Robotic ileocolic resection with intracorporeal anastomosis for Crohn's disease.

Authors:  H Hande Aydinli; Marissa Anderson; Amanda Hambrecht; Mitchell A Bernstein; Alexis L Grucela
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2020-07-28

4.  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 5.  What have we learned in minimally invasive colorectal surgery from NSQIP and NIS large databases? A systematic review.

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

6.  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

7.  Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Leonardo Solaini; Francesca Bazzocchi; Davide Cavaliere; Andrea Avanzolini; Alessandro Cucchetti; Giorgio Ercolani
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Operative time and length of stay is similar between robotic assisted and laparoscopic colon and rectal resections.

Authors:  Heather R Nolan; Betsy E Smith; Michael D Honaker
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-03-28

Review 9.  Robotic surgery in colorectal cancer: the way forward or a passing fad.

Authors:  James Chi-Yong Ngu; Seon-Hahn Kim
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2019-12

10.  Differences in Effectiveness and Use of Robotic Surgery in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Colectomy.

Authors:  M Schootman; S Hendren; T Loux; K Ratnapradipa; J M Eberth; N O Davidson
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.