Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 6/2016

01-06-2016

Evaluating quality across minimally invasive platforms in colorectal surgery

Authors: Deborah S. Keller, Juan R. Flores-Gonzalez, Sergio Ibarra, Nisreen Madhoun, Reena Tahilramani, Ali Mahmood, Eric M. Haas

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 6/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

There is an increasing emphasis on optimizing and measuring surgical quality. The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive techniques have been proven; however, direct comparison of outcomes across platforms has not been performed. Our goal was to compare operative times and quality across three minimally invasive platforms in colorectal surgery.

Methods

A prospective database was reviewed for elective minimally invasive surgery (MIS) cases from 2008 to 2014. Patients were stratified into multiport laparoscopic, single-incision laparoscopic (SILS) or robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches (RALS). Demographics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was used to predict the demographic and procedural factors and outcomes associated with each platform. The main outcome measures were operative time and surgical quality by approach.

Results

A total of 1055 cases were evaluated—28.4 % LAP, 18.5 % RALS, and 53.1 % SILS. RALS had the most complex patients, pathology, and procedures. The main diagnosis for RALS was rectal cancer (49.5 %), patients predominantly underwent pelvic surgery (72.8 %), had higher rates of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (p < 0.001) and stoma creation (p < 0.001). RALS had the longest operative time and highest complication and readmissions rates (all p < 0.001). Multiport patients were older than SILS and RALS (p = 0.021), had the most intraoperative complications (p < 0.001), conversions (p < 0.001), and had the longest length of stay (p = 0.001). SILS had the shortest operative times (p < 0.001), length of stay (p = 0.001), and lowest rates of complications (p < 0.001), readmissions (p < 0.001), and unplanned reoperation (p = 0.014). All platforms offered high quality (HARM score 0) from overall short LOS, low readmission, and mortality rates.

Conclusions

Multiport, RALS, and SILS each serve a distinct demographic and disease profile and have predictable outcomes. All have risks and benefits, but offer overall high-quality care with a composite of LOS, readmission, and mortality rates. Operative times were directly associated with readmission rates. As all three platforms offer good quality, the choice of which MIS approach to use should be guided by demographics and disease process.
Literature
1.
Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer NJ (2004) Measuring the quality of surgical care: structure, process, or outcomes? J Am Coll Surg 198:626–632CrossRefPubMed
2.
Almoudaris AM, Clark S, Vincent C, Faiz O (2011) Establishing quality in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 13:961–973CrossRefPubMed
3.
Bilimoria KY, Cohen ME, Merkow RP et al (2010) Comparison of outlier identification methods in hospital surgical quality improvement programs. J Gastrointest Surg 14:1600–1607CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Keller DS, Chien HL, Hashemi L, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP (2014) The HARM score: a novel, easy measure to evaluate quality and outcomes in colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 259:1119–1125CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
8.
9.
Kelly KN, Iannuzzi JC, Rickles AS, Monson JR, Fleming FJ (2014) Risk factors associated with 30-day postoperative readmissions in major gastrointestinal resections. J Gastrointest Surg 18(1):35–43; discussion 43–44 CrossRefPubMed
10.
Bailey MB, Davenport DL, Vargas HD, Evers BM, McKenzie SP (2014) Longer operative time: deterioration of clinical outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 57:616–622CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Kurmann A, Vorburger SA, Candinas D, Beldi G (2011) Operation time and body mass index are significant risk factors for surgical site infection in laparoscopic sigmoid resection: a multicenter study. Surg Endosc 25:3531–3534CrossRefPubMed
13.
Procter LD, Davenport DL, Bernard AC, Zwischenberger JB (2010) General surgical operative duration is associated with increased risk-adjusted infectious complication rates and length of hospital stay. J Am Coll Surg 210:60-5.e1–60-5.e2CrossRef
14.
Keller DS, Bankwitz B, Woconish D et al (2014) Predicting who will fail early discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an established enhanced recovery pathway. Surg Endosc 28:74–79CrossRefPubMed
15.
Evans C, Lim J, Gatzen C, Huang A (2012) Factors influencing laparoscopic colorectal operative duration and its effect on clinical outcome. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22:437–442CrossRefPubMed
16.
Nelson H, Sargent DJ, COST Study Group (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059CrossRef
17.
Bonjer HJ, Hop WC, Nelson H et al (2007) Laparoscopically assisted vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg 142:298–303CrossRefPubMed
18.
Delaney CP, Chang E, Senagore AJ, Broder M (2008) Clinical outcomes and resource utilization associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy using a large national database. Ann Surg 247:819–824CrossRefPubMed
19.
Kennedy GD, Heise C, Rajamanickam V, Harms B, Foley EF (2009) Laparoscopy decreases postoperative complication rates after abdominal colectomy: results from the national surgical quality improvement program. Ann Surg 249:596–601CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lacy AM, Delgado S, Castells A et al (2008) The long-term results of a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopy-assisted versus open surgery for colon cancer. Ann Surg 248:1–7CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC et al (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484CrossRefPubMed
23.
Boutros M, Hippalgaonkar N, Silva E, Allende D, Wexner SD, Berho M (2013) Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer results in higher lymph node yield and better short-term outcomes than open surgery: a large single-center comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 56:679–688CrossRefPubMed
24.
Braga M, Frasson M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, Capretti G, Di Carlo V (2007) Laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer patients: outcome and cost-benefit analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 50:464–471CrossRefPubMed
25.
Chen HH, Wexner SD, Weiss EG et al (1998) Laparoscopic colectomy for benign colorectal disease is associated with a significant reduction in disability as compared with laparotomy. Surg Endosc 12:1397–1400CrossRefPubMed
26.
Shapiro SB, Lambert PJ, Mathiason MA (2008) A comparison of open and laparoscopic techniques in elective resection for diverticular disease. Wis Med J 107:287–291
27.
Sklow B, Read T, Birnbaum E, Fry R, Fleshman J (2003) Age and type of procedure influence the choice of patients for laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 17:923–929CrossRefPubMed
28.
Salloum RM, Bulter DC, Schwartz SI (2006) Economic evaluation of minimally invasive colectomy. J Am Coll Surg 202:269–274CrossRefPubMed
29.
Biondi A, Grosso G, Mistretta A et al (2013) Laparoscopic vs. open approach for colorectal cancer: evolution over time of minimal invasive surgery. BMC Surg 13(Suppl 2):S12CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V et al (2004) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 47:2162–2168CrossRefPubMed
31.
Keller DS, Senagore AJ, Lawrence JK, Champagne BJ, Delaney CP (2014) Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 28(1):212–221CrossRefPubMed
32.
Kim CW, Kim CH, Baik SH (2014) Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 18:816–830CrossRefPubMed
33.
Champagne BJ, Papaconstantinou HT, Parmar SS et al (2012) Single-incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a multicenter, case-controlled comparison. Ann Surg 255:66–69CrossRefPubMed
34.
Fung AK, Aly EH (2012) Systematic review of single-incision laparoscopic colonic surgery. Br J Surg 99:1353–1364CrossRefPubMed
35.
Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G et al (2012) Standard laparoscopic versus single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: early results of a randomized prospective study. Am J Surg 204:115–120CrossRefPubMed
36.
Makino T, Milsom JW, Lee SW (2012) Feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: a systematic review. Ann Surg 255:667–676CrossRefPubMed
37.
Trastulli S, Farinella E, Cirocchi R et al (2012) Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome. Colorectal Dis 14:e134–e156CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
40.
Morris AM, Baldwin LM, Matthews B et al (2007) Reoperation as a quality indicator in colorectal surgery: a population-based analysis. Ann Surg 245:73–79CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Delaney CP (2008) Outcome of discharge within 24–72 hours after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 51:181–185CrossRefPubMed
42.
Delaney CP, Brady K, Woconish D, Parmar SP, Champagne BJ (2012) Towards optimizing perioperative colorectal care: outcomes for 1,000 consecutive laparoscopic colon procedures using enhanced recovery pathways. Am J Surg. 203:353–355; discussion 355–356
43.
Kariv Y, Wang W, Senagore AJ, Hammel JP, Fazio VW, Delaney CP (2006) Multivariable analysis of factors associated with hospital readmission after intestinal surgery. Am J Surg 191:364–371CrossRefPubMed
44.
Kalish RL, Daley J, Duncan CC, Davis RB, Coffman GA, Iezzoni LI (1995) Costs of potential complications of care for major surgery patients. Am J Med Qual 10:48–54CrossRefPubMed
45.
Wick EC, Shore AD, Hirose K et al (2011) Readmission rates and cost following colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 54:1475–1479CrossRefPubMed
46.
Keller DS, Park KJ, Augestad KM, Delaney CP (2014) Integration of open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer resection: oncologic and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 28:2129–2136CrossRefPubMed
47.
Baek SJ, Kim CH, Cho MS et al (2015) Robotic surgery for rectal cancer can overcome difficulties associated with pelvic anatomy. Surg Endosc 29(6):1419–1424CrossRefPubMed
48.
Memon S, Heriot AG, Murphy DG, Bressel M, Lynch AC (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 19:2095–2101CrossRefPubMed
49.
Yang Y, Wang F, Zhang P et al (2012) Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, focusing on rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 19(12):3727–3736CrossRefPubMed
50.
Keller DS, Bankwitz B, Nobel T, Delaney CP (2014) Using frailty to predict who will fail early discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an established recovery pathway. Dis Colon Rectum 57:337–342CrossRefPubMed
51.
Manilich E, Vogel JD, Kiran RP, Church JM, Seyidova-Khoshknabi D, Remzi FH (2013) Key factors associated with postoperative complications in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 56:64–71CrossRefPubMed
52.
Azimuddin K, Rosen L, Reed JF III, Stasik JJ, Riether RD, Khubchandani IT (2001) Readmissions after colorectal surgery cannot be predicted. Dis Colon Rectum 44:942–946CrossRefPubMed
53.
Lee SW, Milsom JW, Nash GM (2011) Single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic right and hand-assisted left colectomy: a case-matched comparison. Dis Colon Rectum 54:1355–1361CrossRefPubMed
54.
Khayat A, Maggiori L, Vicaut E, Ferron M, Panis Y (2015) Does single port improve results of laparoscopic colorectal surgery? A propensity score adjustment analysis. Surg Endosc. doi:10.​1007/​s00464-015-4063-7 PubMed
55.
Patel CB, Ragupathi M, Ramos-Valadez DI, Haas EM (2011) A three-arm (laparoscopic, hand-assisted, and robotic) matched-case analysis of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 54:144–150CrossRefPubMed
56.
Dimick JB, Staiger DO, Hall BL, Ko CY, Birkmeyer JD (2013) Composite measures for profiling hospitals on surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 257:67–72CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Evaluating quality across minimally invasive platforms in colorectal surgery
Authors
Deborah S. Keller
Juan R. Flores-Gonzalez
Sergio Ibarra
Nisreen Madhoun
Reena Tahilramani
Ali Mahmood
Eric M. Haas
Publication date
01-06-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4479-0

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 6/2016 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Simple versus reinforced cruroplasty in patients submitted to concomitant laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: prospective evaluation in a bariatric center of excellence

OriginalPaper

Totally laparoscopic versus laparoscopic-assisted left colectomy for cancer: a retrospective review

OriginalPaper

Pilot study of a novel pain management strategy: evaluating the impact on patient outcomes

OriginalPaper

Validity, reliability and support for implementation of independence-scaled procedural assessment in laparoscopic surgery

New Technology

A simplified laparoscopic approach to ventral hernia repair: a new “finned” mesh configuration with defect closure

OriginalPaper

A single-centre experience of relaparoscopy in complications of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair-feasibility and outcomes