Yongjin F Lee1, Jeremy Albright1, Warqaa M Akram1, Juan Wu1, Jane Ferraro1, Robert K Cleary2. 1. Colon and Rectal Surgery, St Joseph Mercy Hospital Ann Arbor, 5325 Elliott Dr. Suite #104, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106, USA. 2. Colon and Rectal Surgery, St Joseph Mercy Hospital Ann Arbor, 5325 Elliott Dr. Suite #104, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106, USA. Robert.Cleary@stjoeshealth.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic conversion-to-open colorectal surgery is associated with worse outcomes when compared to operations completed without conversion. Consequences of robotic conversion have not yet been determined. The purpose of this study is to compare short-term outcomes of converted robotic colorectal cases with those that are completed without conversion, as well as with cases done by the open approach. METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP database was queried for patients who underwent robotic completed, robotic converted-to-open, and open colorectal resection between 2012 and 2015. Propensity scores were estimated using gradient-boosted machines and converted to weights. Generalized linear models were fit using propensity score-weighted data. RESULTS: A total of 25,253 patients met inclusion criteria-21,356 (84.5%) open, 3663 (14.5%) robotic completed, and 234 (0.9%) conversions. Conversion rate was 6.0%. Converted cases had significantly higher 30-day mortality rate, higher complication rate, and longer hospital length of stay than completed cases. Converted patients also had significantly higher rates of the following complications: surgical site infections, cardiac complications, deep venous thrombosis, postoperative ileus, postoperative re-intubation, renal failure, and 30-day reoperation. Compared to the open approach, converted patients had significantly more cardiac complications, postoperative reintubation, and longer operating times with no significant difference in 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned robotic conversion-to-open is associated with worse outcomes than completed cases and outcomes that more closely resemble traditional open colorectal surgery. Patients should be counseled with regard to minimally invasive conversion rates and outcomes. The continued pursuit of technological advancements that decrease the risk for conversion in minimally invasive colorectal surgery is clearly warranted.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic conversion-to-open colorectal surgery is associated with worse outcomes when compared to operations completed without conversion. Consequences of robotic conversion have not yet been determined. The purpose of this study is to compare short-term outcomes of converted robotic colorectal cases with those that are completed without conversion, as well as with cases done by the open approach. METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP database was queried for patients who underwent robotic completed, robotic converted-to-open, and open colorectal resection between 2012 and 2015. Propensity scores were estimated using gradient-boosted machines and converted to weights. Generalized linear models were fit using propensity score-weighted data. RESULTS: A total of 25,253 patients met inclusion criteria-21,356 (84.5%) open, 3663 (14.5%) robotic completed, and 234 (0.9%) conversions. Conversion rate was 6.0%. Converted cases had significantly higher 30-day mortality rate, higher complication rate, and longer hospital length of stay than completed cases. Converted patients also had significantly higher rates of the following complications: surgical site infections, cardiac complications, deep venous thrombosis, postoperative ileus, postoperative re-intubation, renal failure, and 30-day reoperation. Compared to the open approach, converted patients had significantly more cardiac complications, postoperative reintubation, and longer operating times with no significant difference in 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned robotic conversion-to-open is associated with worse outcomes than completed cases and outcomes that more closely resemble traditional open colorectal surgery. Patients should be counseled with regard to minimally invasive conversion rates and outcomes. The continued pursuit of technological advancements that decrease the risk for conversion in minimally invasive colorectal surgery is clearly warranted.
Authors: Nikki E Kolfschoten; Nicoline J van Leersum; Gea A Gooiker; Perla J Marang van de Mheen; Eric-Hans Eddes; Job Kievit; Ronald Brand; Pieter J Tanis; Willem A Bemelman; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Jeroen Meijerink; Michel W J M Wouters Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Claudio Ricci; Riccardo Casadei; Vincenzo Alagna; Elia Zani; Giovanni Taffurelli; Carlo Alberto Pacilio; Francesco Minni Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2016-09-05 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Martijn H G M van der Pas; Charlotte L Deijen; Gabor S A Abis; Elly S M de Lange-de Klerk; Eva Haglind; Alois Fürst; Antonio M Lacy; Miguel A Cuesta; Hendrik J Bonjer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 4.584
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: Jan Franko; Steven A Fassler; Masoud Rezvani; Brendan G O'Connell; Steven G Harper; Joseph H Nejman; D Mark Zebley Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-02-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Celeste Y Kang; Obaid O Chaudhry; Wissam J Halabi; Vinh Nguyen; Joseph C Carmichael; Michael J Stamos; Steven Mills Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: A Agha; A Fürst; I Iesalnieks; S Fichtner-Feigl; N Ghali; D Krenz; M Anthuber; K W Jauch; P Piso; H J Schlitt Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 2.571
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: David Jayne; Alessio Pigazzi; Helen Marshall; Julie Croft; Neil Corrigan; Joanne Copeland; Phil Quirke; Nick West; Tero Rautio; Niels Thomassen; Henry Tilney; Mark Gudgeon; Paolo Pietro Bianchi; Richard Edlin; Claire Hulme; Julia Brown Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 56.272
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
Authors: Dhiraj J Pangal; Guillaume Kugener; Yichao Zhu; Aditya Sinha; Vyom Unadkat; David J Cote; Ben Strickland; Martin Rutkowski; Andrew Hung; Animashree Anandkumar; X Y Han; Vardan Papyan; Bozena Wrobel; Gabriel Zada; Daniel A Donoho Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 4.996