Katherine Y Hu1, Ruizhe Wu2, Aniko Szabo2, Timothy J Ridolfi1, Kirk A Ludwig1, Carrie Y Peterson3. 1. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 2. Division of Biostatistics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 3. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Electronic address: cypeterson@mcw.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The robotic platform is increasingly used in colorectal surgery. Recent upgrades in the robotic platform and introduction of proctectomy-specific reports from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) warrant updated evaluation of minimally invasive proctectomy outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy using ACS-NSQIP data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP data set was used to identify adult patients undergoing elective robotic and laparoscopic proctectomy in 2016 and 2017. Demographics, preoperative and intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected. Propensity-weighted analysis was used to estimate the effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery on outcomes. RESULTS: Of 3845 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 2681 (70%) underwent a laparoscopic approach and 1164 (30%) underwent a robotic approach. Patients undergoing a robotic procedure were more likely to be older, have higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, low rectal tumors, and have undergone chemotherapy or radiation before surgery. After propensity adjustment, a robotic approach was associated with a decrease in conversion to open operation (estimated mean difference, -6.7%; P < 0.01), length of stay (-0.6 d; P = 0.01), occurrence of postoperative ileus (-3.7%; P = 0.01), and an increase in operative time (20.3 min; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Using data from a national cohort, we found that compared with laparoscopy, robotic proctectomy is associated with decreased conversion to open operation, longer operation time, decreased length of stay, and decreased postoperative ileus. Our study identified several advantages to a robotic approach; however, further work is needed to assess cost-effectiveness in conjunction with clinical outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The robotic platform is increasingly used in colorectal surgery. Recent upgrades in the robotic platform and introduction of proctectomy-specific reports from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) warrant updated evaluation of minimally invasive proctectomy outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy using ACS-NSQIP data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP data set was used to identify adult patients undergoing elective robotic and laparoscopic proctectomy in 2016 and 2017. Demographics, preoperative and intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected. Propensity-weighted analysis was used to estimate the effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery on outcomes. RESULTS: Of 3845 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 2681 (70%) underwent a laparoscopic approach and 1164 (30%) underwent a robotic approach. Patients undergoing a robotic procedure were more likely to be older, have higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, low rectal tumors, and have undergone chemotherapy or radiation before surgery. After propensity adjustment, a robotic approach was associated with a decrease in conversion to open operation (estimated mean difference, -6.7%; P < 0.01), length of stay (-0.6 d; P = 0.01), occurrence of postoperative ileus (-3.7%; P = 0.01), and an increase in operative time (20.3 min; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Using data from a national cohort, we found that compared with laparoscopy, robotic proctectomy is associated with decreased conversion to open operation, longer operation time, decreased length of stay, and decreased postoperative ileus. Our study identified several advantages to a robotic approach; however, further work is needed to assess cost-effectiveness in conjunction with clinical outcomes.
Authors: T Matsuyama; H Endo; H Yamamoto; I Takemasa; K Uehara; T Hanai; H Miyata; T Kimura; H Hasegawa; Y Kakeji; M Inomata; Y Kitagawa; Y Kinugasa Journal: BJS Open Date: 2021-09-06