Iktej S Jabbal1, Aaron C Spaulding2, Riccardo Lemini1, Shalmali R Borkar3, Krystof Stanek1, Dorin T Colibaseanu1. 1. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 2. Division of Health Care Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA. Spaulding.aaron@mayo.edu. 3. Division of Health Care Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare in-hospital complication rates and treatment costs between rectal cancer patients receiving permanent and temporary stomas. Surgical complications and costs associated with permanent stoma formation are still poorly understood. While choosing between the two stoma options is usually based on clinical and technical factors, disparities exist. METHODS: Patients with rectal cancer, stoma formation, complications, and cost of care were identified from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Discharge Database. Rectal cancer patients who underwent elective surgery and received a permanent or temporary stoma were identified using ICD-10 codes. Patients who underwent colostomy with resection were included in the "Permanent stoma" group, and those who underwent "resection with ileostomy" were included in the "temporary stoma" group. Multivariable models compared patients receiving temporary vs. permanent stomas. RESULTS: Regression models revealed no difference in the odds of having a complication between patients who obtained permanent versus temporary stoma (OR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.70-1.32). Further, after adjusting for the number of surgeries, demographic variables, socioeconomic and regional factors, comorbidities, and type of surgery, there was a significant difference between permanent and temporary stomas for rectal cancer (ß - 0.05, p = 0.03) in the log cost of creating a permanent stoma. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest there are no differences associated with complications, and reduced cost for permanent compared to temporary stomas. Increased costs are also associated with receiving minimally invasive surgery. As a result, disparities associated with receipt of MIS could ultimately influence the type of stoma received.
OBJECTIVE: To compare in-hospital complication rates and treatment costs between rectal cancer patients receiving permanent and temporary stomas. Surgical complications and costs associated with permanent stoma formation are still poorly understood. While choosing between the two stoma options is usually based on clinical and technical factors, disparities exist. METHODS: Patients with rectal cancer, stoma formation, complications, and cost of care were identified from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Discharge Database. Rectal cancer patients who underwent elective surgery and received a permanent or temporary stoma were identified using ICD-10 codes. Patients who underwent colostomy with resection were included in the "Permanent stoma" group, and those who underwent "resection with ileostomy" were included in the "temporary stoma" group. Multivariable models compared patients receiving temporary vs. permanent stomas. RESULTS: Regression models revealed no difference in the odds of having a complication between patients who obtained permanent versus temporary stoma (OR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.70-1.32). Further, after adjusting for the number of surgeries, demographic variables, socioeconomic and regional factors, comorbidities, and type of surgery, there was a significant difference between permanent and temporary stomas for rectal cancer (ß - 0.05, p = 0.03) in the log cost of creating a permanent stoma. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest there are no differences associated with complications, and reduced cost for permanent compared to temporary stomas. Increased costs are also associated with receiving minimally invasive surgery. As a result, disparities associated with receipt of MIS could ultimately influence the type of stoma received.
Authors: Grace C Lee; Liliana G Bordeianou; Todd D Francone; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Robert N Goldstone; Rocco Ricciardi; Hiroko Kunitake; Motaz Qadan Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Courtney J Balentine; Jonathan Wilks; Celia Robinson; Christy Marshall; Daniel Anaya; Daniel Albo; David H Berger Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2010-04-01 Impact factor: 2.192
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: Elizabeth Ward; Michael Halpern; Nicole Schrag; Vilma Cokkinides; Carol DeSantis; Priti Bandi; Rebecca Siegel; Andrew Stewart; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2007-12-20 Impact factor: 508.702