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 1/2019

01-01-2019

With widespread adoption of MIS colectomy for colon cancer, does hospital type matter?

Authors: K. Freischlag, M. Adam, M. Turner, J. Watson, B. Ezekian, P. M. Schroder, C. Mantyh, J. Migaly

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Recent studies have shown that hospital type impacts patient outcomes, but no studies have examined hospital differences in outcomes for patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for segmental colectomies.

Methods

The 2010–2014 National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients undergoing segmental colectomy for non-metastatic colon adenocarcinoma. Descriptive statistics characterized MIS utilization by hospital type. Multivariable models were used to examine the effect of hospital type on outcomes after MIS. Survival probability was plotted using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

80,922 patients underwent MIS segmental colectomy for colon cancer from 2010 to 2014. From 2010 to 2014, the number of MIS segmental colectomies increased by 157% at academic hospitals, 151% at comprehensive hospitals, and 153% at community hospitals. Compared to academic hospitals, community and comprehensive hospitals had greater adjusted odds of positive margins (Community OR 1.525, 95% Confidence Interval 1.233–1.885; Comprehensive OR 1.216, 95% CI 1.041–1.42), incomplete number of lymph nodes analyzed (< 12 LNs) from surgery (Community OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.98–2.32; Comprehensive OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.34–1.51), and greater 30-day mortality (Community OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14–1.78; Comprehensive OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17–1.59). Patient survival probability was higher at academic hospitals at 5 years (Academic 69% vs. Comprehensive 66% vs. Community 63%, p < 0.001). Community hospitals and comprehensive hospitals had significantly higher risk of adjusted long-term mortality (Community HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.19–1.37; p < 0.001; Comprehensive HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.09–1.20; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Despite widespread use of laparoscopic oncologic surgery, short- and long-term outcomes from MIS for segmental colectomy are superior at academic hospitals. This difference may be due to superior perioperative oncologic technique and surgical outcomes at academic hospitals. Our data provide important information for patients, referring physicians, and surgeons about the significance of hospital type in management of colon cancer.
Literature
1.
Bonjer HJ et al (2007) Laparoscopically assisted vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg 142(3):298–303CrossRefPubMed
2.
Holder-Murray J, Dozois EJ (2011) Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer: past, present, and future. Int J Surg Oncol 2011:490917PubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Fowler DL, White SA (1991) Laparoscopy-assisted sigmoid resection. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1(3):183–188PubMed
4.
Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS (1991) Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1(3):144–150PubMed
5.
Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350(20):2050–2059CrossRef
6.
Braga M et al (2002) Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: a randomized trial on short-term outcome. Ann Surg 236(6):759–766 (Disscussion 767)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Guillou PJ et al (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365(9472):1718–1726CrossRefPubMed
8.
Lacy AM et al (2002) Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 359(9325):2224–2229CrossRefPubMed
9.
Liang JT et al (2007) Oncologic results of laparoscopic versus conventional open surgery for stage II or III left-sided colon cancers: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg Oncol 14(1):109–117CrossRefPubMed
10.
Milsom JW et al (1998) A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg 187(1):46–54 (Discussion 54–55)CrossRefPubMed
11.
Veldkamp R et al (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6(7):477–484CrossRefPubMed
12.
Noel JK et al (2007) Minimally invasive colorectal resection outcomes: short-term comparison with open procedures. J Am Coll Surg 204(2):291–307CrossRefPubMed
13.
Weeks JC et al (2002) Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 287(3):321–328CrossRefPubMed
14.
Schwenk W et al (2005) Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD003145
15.
Kiran RP et al (2010) Laparoscopic approach significantly reduces surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: data from national surgical quality improvement program. J Am Coll Surg 211(2):232–238CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Jayne DG et al (2010) Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 97(11):1638–1645CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kuhry E et al (2008) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Cancer Treat Rev 34(6):498–504CrossRefPubMed
19.
da Luz Moreira A et al (2010) Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for patients with American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classifications 3 and 4: the minimally invasive approach is associated with significantly quicker recovery and reduced costs. Surg Endosc 24(6):1280–1286CrossRefPubMed
20.
Weber WP et al (2007) Impact of surgeon and hospital caseload on the likelihood of performing laparoscopic vs open sigmoid resection for diverticular disease: a study based on 55,949 patients. Arch Surg 142(3):253–259 (Discussion 259)CrossRefPubMed
21.
Alnasser M et al (2014) National disparities in laparoscopic colorectal procedures for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 28(1):49–57CrossRefPubMed
22.
Moghadamyeghaneh Z et al (2015) Variations in laparoscopic colectomy utilization in the United States. Dis Colon Rectum 58(10):950–956CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Bach PB et al (2001) The influence of hospital volume on survival after resection for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 345(3):181–188CrossRefPubMed
25.
Fong Y et al (2005) Long-term survival is superior after resection for cancer in high-volume centers. Ann Surg 242(4):540–544 (Discussion 544–547)PubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Killeen SD et al (2005) Provider volume and outcomes for oncological procedures. Br J Surg 92(4):389–402CrossRefPubMed
27.
28.
Begg CB et al (1998) Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA 280(20):1747–1751CrossRefPubMed
29.
Holm T et al (1997) Influence of hospital- and surgeon-related factors on outcome after treatment of rectal cancer with or without preoperative radiotherapy. Br J Surg 84(5):657–663CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
Bilimoria KY et al (2008) The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol 15(3):683–690CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
33.
Baxter NN et al (2005) Lymph node evaluation in colorectal cancer patients: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 97(3):219–225CrossRefPubMed
34.
Bilimoria KY et al (2008) Lymph node evaluation as a colon cancer quality measure: a national hospital report card. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(18):1310–1317CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
36.
37.
38.
Tekkis PP et al (2005) Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: comparison of right-sided and left-sided resections. Ann Surg 242(1):83–91CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Ritchie WP Jr, Rhodes RS, Biester TW (1999) Work loads and practice patterns of general surgeons in the United States, 1995–1997: a report from the American Board of Surgery. Ann Surg 230(4):533–542 (Discussion 542–543)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Dominguez EP et al (2013) Minimally invasive surgery adoption into an established surgical practice: impact of a fellowship-trained colleague. Surg Endosc 27(4):1267–1272CrossRefPubMed
41.
Birch DW, Misra M, Farrokhyar F (2007) The feasibility of introducing advanced minimally invasive surgery into surgical practice. Can J Surg 50(4):256–260PubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Schrag D et al (2003) Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection. J Surg Oncol 83(2):68–78 (Discussion 78–79)CrossRefPubMed
43.
Massarotti H et al (2017) Impact of surgeon laparoscopic training and case volume of laparoscopic surgery on conversion during elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 19(1):76–85CrossRefPubMed
44.
Buurma M et al (2015) Influence of individual surgeon volume on oncological outcome of colorectal cancer surgery. Int J Surg Oncol 2015:464570PubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Liu CJ et al (2015) Association of surgeon volume and hospital volume with the outcome of patients receiving definitive surgery for colorectal cancer: a nationwide population-based study. Cancer 121(16):2782–2790CrossRefPubMed
46.
Karanicolas PJ et al (2009) The more the better?: the impact of surgeon and hospital volume on in-hospital mortality following colorectal resection. Ann Surg 249(6):954–959CrossRefPubMed
47.
Borowski DW et al (2007) Impact of surgeon volume and specialization on short-term outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 94(7):880–889CrossRefPubMed
48.
49.
McGrath DR et al (2005) Surgeon and hospital volume and the management of colorectal cancer patients in Australia. ANZ J Surg 75(10):901–910CrossRefPubMed
50.
Larson DW et al (2008) Surgeon volume does not predict outcomes in the setting of technical credentialing: results from a randomized trial in colon cancer. Ann Surg 248(5):746–750CrossRefPubMed
51.
Ko CY et al (2002) Are high-volume surgeons and hospitals the most important predictors of in-hospital outcome for colon cancer resection? Surgery 132(2):268–273CrossRefPubMed
52.
53.
Ross HM et al (2008) Adoption of laparoscopic colectomy: results and implications of ASCRS hands-on course participation. Surg Innov 15(3):179–183CrossRefPubMed
54.
Tsui C, Klein R, Garabrant M (2013) Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy. Surg Endosc 27(7):2253–2257CrossRefPubMed
55.
Sheetz KH et al (2017) Provider experience and the comparative safety of laparoscopic and open colectomy. Health Serv Res 52(1):56–73CrossRefPubMed
56.
Damle RN et al (2014) Surgeon volume and elective resection for colon cancer: an analysis of outcomes and use of laparoscopy. J Am Coll Surg 218(6):1223–1230CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
57.
58.
Munro A et al (2015) Do Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) processes influence survival in patients with colorectal cancer? A population-based experience. BMC Cancer 15:686CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
59.
Bonrath EM et al (2015) Comprehensive surgical coaching enhances surgical skill in the operating room: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 262(2):205–212CrossRefPubMed
60.
Greenberg CC et al (2015) Surgical coaching for individual performance improvement. Ann Surg 261(1):32–34CrossRefPubMed
61.
Nagendran M et al (2013) Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8:CD006575
62.
Parent RJ et al (2010) Early, intermediate, and late effects of a surgical skills “boot camp” on an objective structured assessment of technical skills: a randomized controlled study. J Am Coll Surg 210(6):984–989CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
With widespread adoption of MIS colectomy for colon cancer, does hospital type matter?
Authors
K. Freischlag
M. Adam
M. Turner
J. Watson
B. Ezekian
P. M. Schroder
C. Mantyh
J. Migaly
Publication date
01-01-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6289-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Surgical Endoscopy 1/2019 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Transanal endoscopic micro-surgery in elderly and very elderly patients: a safe option? Observational study with prospective data collection

OriginalPaper

A novel very simple laparoscopic hepatic inflow occlusion apparatus for laparoscopic liver surgery

OriginalPaper

Comparison of short-term and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy in high-risk patients with gastric cancer: a propensity score-matching analysis

OriginalPaper

Minor laparoscopic liver resection as day-case surgery (without overnight hospitalisation): a pilot study

Review Article

Comparison between conventional colectomy and complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer: a systematic review and pooled analysis

OriginalPaper

A multifaceted individualized pneumoperitoneum strategy for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a multicenter observational feasibility study