Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Updates in Surgery 1/2021

01-02-2021 | Colectomy | Original Article

Trends of complications and innovative techniques’ utilization for colectomies in the United States

Authors: Mohamed A. Abd El Aziz, Fabian Grass, Kevin T. Behm, Sherief Shawki, Anne-Lise D’Angelo, Kellie L. Mathis, David W. Larson

Published in: Updates in Surgery | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Despite an increasing trend towards utilization of minimally invasive approaches (MIS), results regarding their safety profile are contradictory. All patients who underwent elective colectomy for any underlying disease with an identifiable operative approach available from the targeted colectomy files of the ACS-NSQIP PUFs 2013 to 2018 were included. The trend of utilization and complication rates of the different operative approaches (open, laparoscopic, robotic) were assessed during the inclusion period. Furthermore, overall, surgical, and medical complications were compared between the three approaches. The study cohort included 78,987 patients. Of them, 12,335 (15.6%) patients underwent open, 57,874 (73.3%) laparoscopic, and 8,778 (11.1%) robotic surgery. There was an increasing trend towards the utilization of robotic surgery (2.5% increase per year) at the expense of the other approaches. With the increasing trend toward the utilization of the robotic approach, a decreasing trend in overall and surgical complications and length of stay was observed. After adjusting for the baseline confounders, robotic surgery was associated with shorter length of stay, lower rate of overall (OR 0.397; p < 0.05 compared to open and OR: 0.763; p < 0.05 compared to laparoscopy) and surgical complications (OR: 0.464; p < 0.05 compared to open and OR: 0.734; p < 0.05 compared to laparoscopy). This study revealed an increasing trend toward the utilization of MIS for elective colectomy in the US. Robotic surgery was associated with a decreasing trend in overall and surgical morbidity and length of stay.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Sheetz KH, Norton EC, Dimick JB, Regenbogen SE (2019) Perioperative outcomes and trends in the use of robotic colectomy for medicare beneficiaries from 2010 through 2016. JAMA Surg 155:41CrossRef Sheetz KH, Norton EC, Dimick JB, Regenbogen SE (2019) Perioperative outcomes and trends in the use of robotic colectomy for medicare beneficiaries from 2010 through 2016. JAMA Surg 155:41CrossRef
2.
go back to reference George EI, Brand TC, LaPorta A, Marescaux J, Satava RM (2018) Origins of robotic surgery: from skepticism to standard of care. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 22(4):e201800039CrossRef George EI, Brand TC, LaPorta A, Marescaux J, Satava RM (2018) Origins of robotic surgery: from skepticism to standard of care. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 22(4):e201800039CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Leal Ghezzi T, Campos Corleta O (2016) 30 Years of robotic surgery. World J Surg 40(10):2550–2557CrossRef Leal Ghezzi T, Campos Corleta O (2016) 30 Years of robotic surgery. World J Surg 40(10):2550–2557CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Ramirez P, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, Buda A, Yan X, Shuzhong Y, Chetty N et al (2018) Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 379:1895CrossRef Ramirez P, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, Buda A, Yan X, Shuzhong Y, Chetty N et al (2018) Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 379:1895CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Lo BD, Leeds IL, Sundel MH, Gearhart S, Nisly G, Safar B, Atallah C, Fang SH (2020) Frailer patients undergoing robotic colectomies for colon cancer experience increased complication rates compared to open or laparoscopic approaches. Dis Colon Rectum 63:588–597CrossRef Lo BD, Leeds IL, Sundel MH, Gearhart S, Nisly G, Safar B, Atallah C, Fang SH (2020) Frailer patients undergoing robotic colectomies for colon cancer experience increased complication rates compared to open or laparoscopic approaches. Dis Colon Rectum 63:588–597CrossRef
6.
go back to reference van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Bosscha K, Brinkman DJ, van Dieren S, Dijkgraaf MG, Gerhards MF, de Hingh IH, Karsten TM, Lips DJ et al (2019) Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 4(3):199–207CrossRef van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Bosscha K, Brinkman DJ, van Dieren S, Dijkgraaf MG, Gerhards MF, de Hingh IH, Karsten TM, Lips DJ et al (2019) Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 4(3):199–207CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Spinoglio G, Bianchi PP, Marano A, Priora F, Lenti LM, Ravazzoni F, Petz W, Borin S, Ribero D, Formisano G et al (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for the treatment of colon cancer: perioperative outcomes and 5-year survival in a consecutive series of 202 patients. Ann Surg Oncol 25(12):3580–3586CrossRef Spinoglio G, Bianchi PP, Marano A, Priora F, Lenti LM, Ravazzoni F, Petz W, Borin S, Ribero D, Formisano G et al (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for the treatment of colon cancer: perioperative outcomes and 5-year survival in a consecutive series of 202 patients. Ann Surg Oncol 25(12):3580–3586CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB (2020) Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open 3(1):e1918911CrossRef Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB (2020) Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open 3(1):e1918911CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Ingraham AM, Richards KE, Hall BL, Ko CY (2010) Quality improvement in surgery: the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program approach. Adv Surg 44:251–267CrossRef Ingraham AM, Richards KE, Hall BL, Ko CY (2010) Quality improvement in surgery: the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program approach. Adv Surg 44:251–267CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Shiloach M, Frencher SK Jr, Steeger JE, Rowell KS, Bartzokis K, Tomeh MG, Richards KE, Ko CY, Hall BL (2010) Toward robust information: data quality and inter-rater reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 210(1):6–16CrossRef Shiloach M, Frencher SK Jr, Steeger JE, Rowell KS, Bartzokis K, Tomeh MG, Richards KE, Ko CY, Hall BL (2010) Toward robust information: data quality and inter-rater reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 210(1):6–16CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Park JS, Choi GS, Park SY, Kim HJ, Ryuk JP (2012) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg 99(9):1219–1226CrossRef Park JS, Choi GS, Park SY, Kim HJ, Ryuk JP (2012) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg 99(9):1219–1226CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Waters PS, Cheung FP, Peacock O, Heriot AG, Warrier SK, O'Riordain DS, Pillinger S, Lynch AC, Stevenson ARL (2019) Successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer—a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 22(5):488–499CrossRef Waters PS, Cheung FP, Peacock O, Heriot AG, Warrier SK, O'Riordain DS, Pillinger S, Lynch AC, Stevenson ARL (2019) Successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer—a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 22(5):488–499CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Ma S, Chen Y, Chen Y, Guo T, Yang X, Lu Y, Tian J, Cai H (2019) Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted right colectomy compared with laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Surg 42(5):589–598CrossRef Ma S, Chen Y, Chen Y, Guo T, Yang X, Lu Y, Tian J, Cai H (2019) Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted right colectomy compared with laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Surg 42(5):589–598CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Sheng S, Zhao T, Wang X (2018) Comparison of robot-assisted surgery, laparoscopic-assisted surgery, and open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 97(34):e11817CrossRef Sheng S, Zhao T, Wang X (2018) Comparison of robot-assisted surgery, laparoscopic-assisted surgery, and open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 97(34):e11817CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N et al (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318(16):1569–1580CrossRef Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N et al (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318(16):1569–1580CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Jimenez Rodriguez RM, Diaz Pavon JM, de La Portilla de Juan F, Prendes Sillero E, Hisnard Cadet Dussort JM, Padillo J (2011) Prospective randomised study: robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection. Cirugia espanola 89(7):432–438CrossRef Jimenez Rodriguez RM, Diaz Pavon JM, de La Portilla de Juan F, Prendes Sillero E, Hisnard Cadet Dussort JM, Padillo J (2011) Prospective randomised study: robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection. Cirugia espanola 89(7):432–438CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Crippa J, Grass F, Achilli P, Mathis KL, Kelley SR, Merchea A, Colibaseanu DT, Larson DW (2020) Risk factors for conversion in laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 107:560CrossRef Crippa J, Grass F, Achilli P, Mathis KL, Kelley SR, Merchea A, Colibaseanu DT, Larson DW (2020) Risk factors for conversion in laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 107:560CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Li L, Jin J, Min S, Liu D, Liu L (2017) Compliance with the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and prognosis after colorectal cancer surgery: a prospective cohort study. Oncotarget 8(32):53531–53541CrossRef Li L, Jin J, Min S, Liu D, Liu L (2017) Compliance with the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and prognosis after colorectal cancer surgery: a prospective cohort study. Oncotarget 8(32):53531–53541CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Roulin D, Donadini A, Gander S (2015) The impact of enhanced recovery protocol compliance on elective colorectal cancer resection: results from an international registry. Ann Surg 261(6):1153–1159CrossRef Roulin D, Donadini A, Gander S (2015) The impact of enhanced recovery protocol compliance on elective colorectal cancer resection: results from an international registry. Ann Surg 261(6):1153–1159CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Bach C, Miernik A, Schonthaler M (2014) Training in robotics: the learning curve and contemporary concepts in training. Arab J Urol 12(1):58–61CrossRef Bach C, Miernik A, Schonthaler M (2014) Training in robotics: the learning curve and contemporary concepts in training. Arab J Urol 12(1):58–61CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Sridhar AN, Briggs TP, Kelly JD, Nathan S (2017) Training in robotic surgery-an overview. Curr Urol Rep 18(8):58CrossRef Sridhar AN, Briggs TP, Kelly JD, Nathan S (2017) Training in robotic surgery-an overview. Curr Urol Rep 18(8):58CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Mark Knab L, Zenati MS, Khodakov A, Rice M, Al-Abbas A, Bartlett DL, Zureikat AH, Zeh HJ, Hogg ME (2018) Evolution of a novel robotic training curriculum in a complex general surgical oncology fellowship. Ann Surg Oncol 25(12):3445–3452CrossRef Mark Knab L, Zenati MS, Khodakov A, Rice M, Al-Abbas A, Bartlett DL, Zureikat AH, Zeh HJ, Hogg ME (2018) Evolution of a novel robotic training curriculum in a complex general surgical oncology fellowship. Ann Surg Oncol 25(12):3445–3452CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Moit H, Dwyer A, De Sutter M, Heinzel S, Crawford D (2019) A standardized robotic training curriculum in a general surgery program. JSLS J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 23(4):e201900045CrossRef Moit H, Dwyer A, De Sutter M, Heinzel S, Crawford D (2019) A standardized robotic training curriculum in a general surgery program. JSLS J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 23(4):e201900045CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Trends of complications and innovative techniques’ utilization for colectomies in the United States
Authors
Mohamed A. Abd El Aziz
Fabian Grass
Kevin T. Behm
Sherief Shawki
Anne-Lise D’Angelo
Kellie L. Mathis
David W. Larson
Publication date
01-02-2021
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Updates in Surgery / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 2038-131X
Electronic ISSN: 2038-3312
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-020-00862-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Updates in Surgery 1/2021 Go to the issue