Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 3/2016

01-03-2016

Robotic approaches may offer benefit in colorectal procedures, more controversial in other areas: a review of 168,248 cases

Authors: Maria S. Altieri, Jie Yang, Dana A. Telem, Jiawen Zhu, Caitlin Halbert, Mark Talamini, Aurora D. Pryor

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 3/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

While the penetrance of robotic surgery into field of urology and gynecology has been significant, general surgeons have been slower adopters. We sought to compare laparoscopy and RAS among five different general surgical procedures with various penetrance of MIS.

Methods

Following IRB approval, the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System administrative data were used to identify five common laparoscopic general surgery procedures: cholecystectomy, colectomy, esophageal fundoplication (EF), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) between 2008 and 2012. ICD-9 codes were used to select laparoscopic versus robotic procedures. Procedures were compared based on any complication and hospital length of stay (HLOS). Following descriptive analysis, propensity score analysis was used to estimate the population average differences between patients who underwent robotic-assisted and laparoscopic procedures.

Results

There were 1458 patients who had undergone robotic-assisted surgery and 166,790 patients who had undergone laparoscopic surgery among the five procedures between 2008 and 2012. Of the 1458 robotic cases, 186 were cholecystectomy, 307 were RYGB, 118 were SG, 288 were EF, and 559 were colectomy. Initial univariate analysis showed a significantly higher rate of overall complications and HLOS in the laparoscopic group compared to the robotic-assisted group. Laparoscopic colectomy had a significantly higher rate of complications and longer length of stay compared to robotic approaches. No difference in complications or HLOS was seen in the cholecystectomy group. Following propensity score analysis, patients who had undergone robotic-assisted colectomy had significantly lower rate of complications compared to those who underwent conventional laparoscopic procedure (p value = 0.0022). In addition, patients who underwent robotic-assisted SG had on average 1.22 days longer HLOS (p value = 0.0037).

Conclusion

Robotic approaches may facilitate safer adoption of minimally invasive approaches in areas where penetrance of conventional laparoscopy is low, such as in colorectal surgery.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Wei HB, Wei B, Qi CL et al (2011) Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21(6):283–390CrossRef Wei HB, Wei B, Qi CL et al (2011) Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21(6):283–390CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Nguyen NT, Masoomi H, Magno CP, Nguyen XM, Laugenour K, Lane J (2011) Trends in use of bariatric surgery, 2003–2008. J Am Coll Surg 213(2):261–266CrossRefPubMed Nguyen NT, Masoomi H, Magno CP, Nguyen XM, Laugenour K, Lane J (2011) Trends in use of bariatric surgery, 2003–2008. J Am Coll Surg 213(2):261–266CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Bliss LA, Yang CJ, Kent TS, Ng SC, Critchlow JF, Tseng JF (2014) Appendicitis in the modern era: universal problem and variable treatment. Surg Endosc 29(7):1897–1902CrossRefPubMed Bliss LA, Yang CJ, Kent TS, Ng SC, Critchlow JF, Tseng JF (2014) Appendicitis in the modern era: universal problem and variable treatment. Surg Endosc 29(7):1897–1902CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Csujesz N, Ricciardi R, Tseng JF, Shah SA (2008) Current status of surgical management of acute cholecystitis in the United States. World J Surg 32:2230–2236CrossRef Csujesz N, Ricciardi R, Tseng JF, Shah SA (2008) Current status of surgical management of acute cholecystitis in the United States. World J Surg 32:2230–2236CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Carmichael JS, Masoomi H, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Nguyen MD (2011) Utilization of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery fro cancer at academic medical centers: does site of surgery affect rate of laparoscopy? Am Surg 77(10):1300–1304PubMed Carmichael JS, Masoomi H, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Nguyen MD (2011) Utilization of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery fro cancer at academic medical centers: does site of surgery affect rate of laparoscopy? Am Surg 77(10):1300–1304PubMed
7.
go back to reference Rea JD, Cone MM, Diggs BS, Deveney KE, Lu KC, Herzig DO (2011) Utilization of laparoscopic colectomy in the United States before and after the clinical outcomes of surgical therapy study group trial. Ann Surg 254(2):281–288CrossRefPubMed Rea JD, Cone MM, Diggs BS, Deveney KE, Lu KC, Herzig DO (2011) Utilization of laparoscopic colectomy in the United States before and after the clinical outcomes of surgical therapy study group trial. Ann Surg 254(2):281–288CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Simorov A, Shaligram A, Shostrom V, Boilesen E, Thompson J, Oleynikoc D (2012) Laparoscopic colon resection trends in utilization and rate of conversion to open procedure. Ann Surg 256(3):462–468CrossRefPubMed Simorov A, Shaligram A, Shostrom V, Boilesen E, Thompson J, Oleynikoc D (2012) Laparoscopic colon resection trends in utilization and rate of conversion to open procedure. Ann Surg 256(3):462–468CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Cirocchi R, Partelli S, Trastulli S et al (2013) A systematic review on robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Oncol 22:238–246CrossRefPubMed Cirocchi R, Partelli S, Trastulli S et al (2013) A systematic review on robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Oncol 22:238–246CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Elixhauser A, Syeiner C, Harris D (1998) Co-morbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 36:8–27CrossRefPubMed Elixhauser A, Syeiner C, Harris D (1998) Co-morbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 36:8–27CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55CrossRef Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Faries DE, Leon AC, Haro JM, Obenchain RL (2010) Analysis of observational health care data using SAS. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC Faries DE, Leon AC, Haro JM, Obenchain RL (2010) Analysis of observational health care data using SAS. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC
13.
go back to reference Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM (2007) A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 26:734–753CrossRefPubMed Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM (2007) A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 26:734–753CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Austin PC (2009) Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biom J 51:171–184CrossRefPubMed Austin PC (2009) Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biom J 51:171–184CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Rosenbaum PR (2007) Sensitivity analysis for m-estimates, tests and confidence intervals in matched observational studies. Biometrics 63:456–464CrossRefPubMed Rosenbaum PR (2007) Sensitivity analysis for m-estimates, tests and confidence intervals in matched observational studies. Biometrics 63:456–464CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Nguyen NT, Nguyen B, Shih A, Smith B, Hofmann S (2013) Use of laparoscopy in general surgical operations at academic centers. Surg Obes Relat Dis 9:15–20CrossRefPubMed Nguyen NT, Nguyen B, Shih A, Smith B, Hofmann S (2013) Use of laparoscopy in general surgical operations at academic centers. Surg Obes Relat Dis 9:15–20CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Villamere J, Gebhard A, Vu S, Nguyen NT (2014) Utilization and outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic general and bariatric surgical procedures at Academic Medical Centers. Surg Endosc 29(7):1729–1736CrossRefPubMed Villamere J, Gebhard A, Vu S, Nguyen NT (2014) Utilization and outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic general and bariatric surgical procedures at Academic Medical Centers. Surg Endosc 29(7):1729–1736CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Robotic approaches may offer benefit in colorectal procedures, more controversial in other areas: a review of 168,248 cases
Authors
Maria S. Altieri
Jie Yang
Dana A. Telem
Jiawen Zhu
Caitlin Halbert
Mark Talamini
Aurora D. Pryor
Publication date
01-03-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4327-2

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 3/2016 Go to the issue