Top

Surgical Endoscopy

Published in:

01-02-2020 | Colectomy

Minimally invasive colectomy is associated with reduced risk of anastomotic leak and other major perioperative complications and reduced hospital resource utilization as compared with open surgery: a retrospective population-based study of comparative effectiveness and trends of surgical approach

Authors: David Wei, Stephen Johnston, Laura Goldstein, Deborah Nagle

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 2/2020

Abstract

Background

We used a population-based database to: (1) compare clinical and economic outcomes between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS) for colectomy; and (2) evaluate contemporary trends in MIS rates.

Methods

Retrospective Premier Healthcare Database review of patients undergoing elective inpatient colectomy between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2017 (first = index admission). Patients were classified into MIS (laparoscopic/robotic) or OS groups, and by left or right colectomy. Propensity score matching (1:1 ratio) of MIS and OS groups was used to address potential confounding from patient/hospital/provider characteristics. Study outcomes, measured during index admission, included major perioperative complications [anastomotic leak (AL), bleeding, infection, and a composite of infection/AL], operating room time (ORT), length of stay (LOS), and total hospital costs.

Results

Among 134,970 study-eligible patients, MIS rates increased from ~ 2% (2010) to 19–23% (2017), driven by a > tenfold increase in robotic surgery. The matched MIS and OS colectomy groups comprised 46,708 (left) and 44,560 (right) total patients. Risks of AL, bleeding, and infection were lower for MIS versus OS (all p < 0.001). In left: AL occurred in 7.9% of MIS versus 9.9% of OS; bleeding 7.8% versus 9.7%; infection 3.3% versus 5.8%; infection/AL 9.8% versus 13.3%. In right: AL 8.9% versus 11.1%; bleeding 9.8% versus 10.8%; infection 3.0% versus 5.1%; infection/AL 10.5% versus 10.4%. Although ORTs were longer with MIS (left: 240.8 vs. 216.2 min; right: 192.8 vs. 178.0 min), LOS was shorter (left: 5.4 vs. 7.1 days; right: 5.5 vs. 7.1 days), and total hospital costs were lower (left: $18,564 vs. $19,960; right: $17,375 vs. $19,417) versus OS (all p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Compared with OS, MIS was associated with significantly lower risk of major perioperative complications (including AL), lower LOS, and lower total hospital costs, despite longer OR times. MIS colectomy rates have increased over time; recent gains appear to be due to uptake of robotic surgery.

Available only for authorised users

Armijo PR, Pagkratis S, Boilesen E, Tanner T, Oleynikov D (2018) Growth in robotic-assisted procedures is from conversion of laparoscopic procedures and not from open surgeons’ conversion: a study of trends and costs. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5908-z CrossRefPubMed

Lee MG, Chiu CC, Wang CC, Chang CN, Lee SH, Lee M, Hsu TC, Lee CC (2017) Trends and outcomes of surgical treatment for colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2012—an analysis using National Inpatient Database. Sci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02224-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Yeo HL, Isaacs AJ, Abelson JS, Milsom JW, Sedrakyan A (2016) Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomies using a large national database: outcomes and trends related to surgery center volume. Dis Colon Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0000000000000580 CrossRefPubMed

Yeo H, Niland J, Milne D, ter Veer A, Bekaii-Saab T, Farma JM, Lai L, Skibber JM, Small W Jr, Wilkinson N, Schrag D, Weiser MR (2015) Incidence of minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery at National Comprehensive Cancer Network Centers. JNCI. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju362 CrossRefPubMed

Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Hanna MH, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A, Stamos MJ, Mills S (2015) Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for total abdominal colectomy. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4552-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Tsui C, Klein R, Garabrant M (2013) Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2973-9 CrossRefPubMed

Julien M, Dove J, Quindlen K, Halm K, Shabahang M, Wild J, Blansfield J (2016) Evolution of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: the impact of the Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Group Trial. Am Surg 82:685–691PubMed

Ilyas MI, Zangbar B, Nfonsam VN, Maegawa FA, Joseph BA, Patel JA, Wexner SD (2017) Are there differences in outcome after elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease and for cancer? A national inpatient study. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13461 CrossRefPubMed

Scarborough JE, Schumacher J, Kent KC, Heise CP, Greenberg CC (2017) Associations of specific postoperative complications with outcomes after elective colon resection: a procedure-targeted approach toward surgical quality improvement. JAMA Surg 152:e164681CrossRef

10.

Premier Healthcare Database White Paper: Data that informs and performs (2018) Premier Applied Sciences, Premier Inc. https://www.premierinc.com/transforming-healthcare/healthcareperformance-improvement/premier-applied-sciences/

11.

Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM (2005) MRC CLASICC trial group (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726CrossRef

12.

Farrokhyar F, Karanicolas PJ, Thoma A, Simunovic M, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Anvari M, Adili A, Guyatt G (2010) Randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181cf863d CrossRefPubMed

13.

Montori VM, Guyatt GH (2001) Intention-to-treat principle. CMAJ 2001(165):1339–1341

14.

Fergusson D, Aaron SD, Guyatt G (2002) Hébert P (2002) Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis. BMJ 325:652–654CrossRef

15.

McLeod RS, Wright JG, Solomon MJ, Hu X, Walters BC (1996) Lossing Al (1996) Randomized controlled trials in surgery: issues and problems. Surgery 119:483–486CrossRef

16.

Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, Saunders LD, Beck CA, Feasby TE (2005) Ghali WA (2005) Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 43(11):1130–1139CrossRef

17.

Kang CY, Halabi WJ, Chaudhry OO, Nguyen V, Pigazzi A, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ (2013) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer. JAMA Surg 148:65–71CrossRef

18.

Austin PC (2011) An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 CrossRef

19.

Muller CJ, MacLehose RF (2014) Estimating predicted probabilities from logistic regression: different methods correspond to different target populations. Int J Epidemiol. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu029 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Fugang W, Zhaopeng Y, Meng Z, Maomin S (2017) Long-term outcomes of laparoscopy vs. open surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients: a meta-analysis. Mol Clin Oncol. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2017.1419 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Healy MA, Regenbogen SE, Kanters AE, Suwanabol PA, Varban OA, Campbell DA Jr, Dimick JB, Byrn JC (2017) Surgeon variation in complications with minimally invasive and open colectomy: results from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative. JAMA Surg 152:860–867CrossRef

22.

Keller DS, Senagore AJ, Fitch K, Bochner A, Haas EM (2017) A new perspective on the value of minimally invasive colorectal surgery-payer, provider, and patient benefits. Surg Endosc 31:2846–2853CrossRef

23.

Kim RH, Kavanaugh MM, Caldito GC (2017) Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: Improved compliance with guidelines for chemotherapy and survival. Surgery 45:78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.024 CrossRef

24.

Mungo B, Papageorge CM, Stem M, Molena D, Lidor AO (2017) The impact of operative approach on postoperative complications following colectomy for colon caner. World J Surg 41(8):2143–2152CrossRef

25.

Sheetz KH, Norton EC, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2017) Provider experience and the comparative safety of laparoscopic and open colectomy. Health Serv Res. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12482 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Sood A, Meyer CP, Abdollah F, Sammon JD, Sun M, Lipsitz SR, Hollis M, Weissman JS, Menon M, Trinh QD (2017) Minimally invasive surgery and its impact on 30-day postoperative complications, unplanned readmissions and mortality. Br J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10561 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Yamaguchi S, Tashiro J, Araki R, Okuda J, Hanai T, Otsuka K, Saito S, Watanabe M, Sugihara K (2017) Laparoscopic versus open resection for transverse and descending colon cancer: Short-term and long-term outcomes of a multicenter retrospective study of 1830 patients. Asian J Endosc Surg. https://doi.org/10.1111/ases.12373 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Hollis RH, Cannon JA, Singletary BA, Korb ML, Hawn MT, Heslin MJ (2016) understanding the value of both laparoscopic and robotic approaches compared to the open approach in colorectal surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 26(11):850–856CrossRef

29.

Liao CH, Tan EC, Chen CC, Yang MC (2017) Real-world cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy versus open colectomy for colon cancer: a nationwide population-based study. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5176-3 CrossRefPubMed

30.

31.

Murray AC, Chiuzan C, Kiran RP (2016) Risk of anastomotic leak after laparoscopic versus open colectomy. Surg Endosc 30:5275–5282CrossRef

32.

Papageorge CM, Zhao Q, Foley EF, Harms BA, Heise CP, Carchman EH, Kennedy GD (2016) Short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open colectomy for colon cancer. J Surg Res 204:83–93CrossRef

33.

34.

Hammond J, Lim S, Wan Y, Gao X, Patkar A (2014) The burden of gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks: an evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg 45:78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-014-2506-4 CrossRef

35.

Turrentine FE, Denlinger CE, Simpson VB, Garwood RA, Guerlain S, Agrawal A, Friel CM, LaPar DJ, Stukenborg GJ, Jones RS (2015) Morbidity, mortality, cost, and survival estimates of gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks. J Am Coll Surg 45:78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg CrossRef

36.

Sheetz KH, Norton EC, Regenbogen SE, Dimick JB (2017) An instrumental variable analysis comparing medicare expenditures for laparoscopic vs open colectomy. JAMA Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.1578 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Mehta HB, Hughes BD, Sieloff E, Sura SO, Shan Y, Adhikari D, Senagore A (2018) Outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy in younger and older patients: an analysis of Nationwide Readmission Database. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2017.0521 CrossRefPubMed

38.

Fitch K, Bochner A, Keller DS (2017) Cost comparison of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy in colon cancer. Curr Med Res Opin 45:78. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2017.1310719 CrossRef

39.

Laudicella M, Walsh B, Munasinghe A, Faiz O (2016) Impact of laparoscopic versus open surgery on hospital costs for colon cancer: a population-based retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012977 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Cost-to-Charge Ratio Files. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). June 2018. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/state/costtocharge.jsp

41.

Lawson EH, Louie R, Zingmond DS, Brook RH, Hall BL, Han L, Rapp M, Ko CY (2012) A comparison of clinical registry versus administrative claims data for reporting of 30-day surgical complications. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31826b4c4f CrossRefPubMed

42.

Romano PS, Schembri ME (2002) Rainwater JA (2002) Can administrative data be used to ascertain clinically significant postoperative complications? Am J Med Qual 17(4):145–154CrossRef

Title: Minimally invasive colectomy is associated with reduced risk of anastomotic leak and other major perioperative complications and reduced hospital resource utilization as compared with open surgery: a retrospective population-based study of comparative effectiveness and trends of surgical approach
Authors: David Wei
Stephen Johnston
Laura Goldstein
Deborah Nagle
Publication date: 01-02-2020
Publisher: Springer US
Keywords: Colectomy
Colectomy
Minimally Invasive Surgery
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06805-y

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Minimally invasive colectomy is associated with reduced risk of anastomotic leak and other major perioperative complications and reduced hospital resource utilization as compared with open surgery: a retrospective population-based study of comparative effectiveness and trends of surgical approach

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2020

Performance status is a predictive factor of dysphagia improvement after esophageal stenting in patients with malignant esophageal strictures and fistulas

Safety and efficacy of magnetic anchoring electrode-assisted irreversible electroporation for gastric tissue ablation

Re-evaluation of purse string suture in laparoscopic appendectomy

Laparoscopic liver resection for segment VII lesion using a combination of rubber band retraction method and flexible laparoscope

Contrast of therapeutic effects between CBD incision and LLHD stump in biliary tract exploration of LLS for hepatolithiasis

Preoperative biliary drainage of the hepatic lobe to be resected does not affect liver hypertrophy after percutaneous transhepatic portal vein embolization