Literature DB >> 28840352

Barriers to laparoscopic colon resection for cancer: a national analysis.

Alexander T Hawkins1, Molly M Ford2, M Benjamin Hopkins2, Roberta L Muldoon2, Jonathan P Wanderer3, Alexander A Parikh4, Timothy M Geiger2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Level one evidence has shown that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colon cancer improves short-term outcomes with equivalent long-term oncologic results when compared to open surgery. However, the adoption of MIS for patients with colon cancer has not been universal. The goal of this study is to identify barriers to the use of MIS surgery in colon cancer resection across the United States.
METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for all cases of colonic adenocarcinoma resection from 2010 to 2012. Patients undergoing an MIS approach were compared with those undergoing open surgery (OS). MIS was defined as either robotic or laparoscopic surgery. Patients with metastatic disease, surgery for palliation, or tumors >8 cm were excluded. Multivariable modeling was used to identify variables associated with the use of open surgery.
RESULTS: After applying exclusion criteria, 124,205 cases were identified. An MIS approach was used in only 54,621 (44%) patients. In a multivariable model adjusting for stage and tumor size, a number of important factors were associated with decreased odds of a MIS approach including black race (OR .91; p < .0001), lack of insurance (OR .51; p < .0001), lower education (OR .88; p < .0001), lower income (OR .83; p < .0001), treatment at a community program (OR .86; p < .0001), and treatment at a low-volume center (OR .79; p < .0001). Utilization of MIS increased over the study period (2010: 38.7%, 2011: 44.0%, 2012: 49.1%; p < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: MIS approach is utilized in less than half of all colon resections in this national database, which accounts for over 70% of all diagnosed cancers in the US. Significant variability exists among age, race, insurance status, socioeconomic status, region, and facility type. In light of the recognized benefits of the MIS approach, local and national policy should focus on narrowing these disparities and continuing the upward trend of MIS utilization.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colon cancer; Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive surgery; Technology adoption

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28840352     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5782-8

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


  30 in total

Review 1.  On effect size.

Authors:  Ken Kelley; Kristopher J Preacher
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2012-04-30

2.  Surgeon volume and elective resection for colon cancer: an analysis of outcomes and use of laparoscopy.

Authors:  Rachelle N Damle; Christopher W Macomber; Julie M Flahive; Jennifer S Davids; W Brian Sweeney; Paul R Sturrock; Justin A Maykel; Heena P Santry; Karim Alavi
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 6.113

3.  Association of area sociodemographic characteristics and capacity for treatment with disparities in colorectal cancer care and mortality.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Phyllis Brawarsky; Aarthi Iyer; Garrett M Fitzmaurice; Bridget A Neville; Craig Earle
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  The learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Preliminary results from a prospective analysis of 1194 laparoscopic-assisted colectomies.

Authors:  C L Bennett; S J Stryker; M R Ferreira; J Adams; R W Beart
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1997-01

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.  Do racial or socioeconomic disparities exist in lung cancer treatment?

Authors:  Relin Yang; Michael C Cheung; Margaret M Byrne; Youjie Huang; Dao Nguyen; Brian E Lally; Leonidas G Koniaris
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-05-15       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.  Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial.

Authors:  Mark Buunen; Ruben Veldkamp; Wim C J Hop; Esther Kuhry; Johannes Jeekel; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio Lacy; Hendrik J Bonjer
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-12-13       Impact factor: 41.316

9.  The national cancer data base: past, present, and future.

Authors:  David P Winchester; Andrew K Stewart; Jerri Linn Phillips; Elizabeth E Ward
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-10-22       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Early results of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Retrospective analysis of 372 patients treated by Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST) Study Group.

Authors:  J W Fleshman; H Nelson; W R Peters; H C Kim; S Larach; R R Boorse; W Ambroze; P Leggett; R Bleday; S Stryker; B Christenson; S Wexner; A Senagore; D Rattner; J Sutton; A P Fine
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 4.585

View more
  8 in total

1.  An international comparison of the utilisation of and outcomes from minimal access surgery for the treatment of common abdominal surgical emergencies.

Authors:  Karina Tukanova; Sheraz R Markar; Sara Jamel; Alberto Vidal-Diez; George B Hanna
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  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

3.  Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Presentation and Outcomes in Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases Following Cytoreduction and Chemoperfusion: Persistent Inequalities in Outcomes at a High-Volume Center.

Authors:  Caroline J Rieser; Richard S Hoehn; Mazen Zenati; Lauren B Hall; Eliza Kang; Amer H Zureikat; Andrew Lee; Melanie Ongchin; Matthew P Holtzman; James F Pingpank; David L Bartlett; M Haroon A Choudry
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Disparities in utilization of robotic surgery for colon cancer: an evaluation of the U.S. National Cancer Database.

Authors:  Michael L Horsey; Debra Lai; Andrew D Sparks; Aalap Herur-Raman; Marie Borum; Sanjana Rao; Matthew Ng; Vincent J Obias
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2022-01-20

5.  Utilization of Laparoscopic Colon Surgery in the Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File (PUDF).

Authors:  Benjamin Clapp; William Klingsporn; Brittany Harper; Ira L Swinney; Christopher Dodoo; Brian Davis; Alan Tyroch
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2019 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

6.  Audit of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer in Morocco: A report of the results of a prospective multicentre cohort study.

Authors:  Aya El Yaakoubi; Salma Lahmadi; Amine Benkabbou; Raouf Mohsine; Abdelkader Belkouchi; Tijani El Harroudi; Hadj Omar El Malki; Abdelmalek Hrora; Amine Souadka; Mohammed Anass Majbar
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2022-08-03

7.  Using end-user feedback to optimize the design of the Versius Surgical System, a new robot-assisted device for use in minimal access surgery.

Authors:  Luke Hares; Paul Roberts; Keith Marshall; Mark Slack
Journal:  BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol       Date:  2019-12-02

8.  Interim safety analysis of the first-in-human clinical trial of the Versius surgical system, a new robot-assisted device for use in minimal access surgery.

Authors:  Dhananjay Kelkar; Mahindra A Borse; Girish P Godbole; Utkrant Kurlekar; Mark Slack
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 4.584

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.