Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 10/2020

01-10-2020 | Rectal Cancer

The volume–outcome relationship in robotic protectectomy: does center volume matter? Results of a national cohort study

Authors: Seth J. Concors, Douglas R. Murken, Paul T. Hernandez, Najjia N. Mahmoud, E. Carter Paulson

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 10/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Utilization of robotic proctectomy (RP) for rectal cancer has steadily increased since the inception of robotic surgery in 2002. Randomized control trials evaluating the safety of RP are in process to better understand the role of robotic assistance in proctectomy. This study aimed to characterize the trends in the use of RP for rectal cancer, and to compare oncologic outcomes with center-level RP volume.

Materials and methods

8107 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent RP were identified in the National Cancer Database (2010–2015). Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between center-level volume and conversion to open proctectomy, margin status, lymph node yield, 30- and 90-day post-operative mortality, and overall survival.

Results

The utilization of RP increased from 2010 to 2015. On multivariate regression, lower center-level volume of RP was associated with significantly higher rates of conversion to open, positive margins, inadequate lymph node harvest (≥ 12), and lower overall survival. The present study was limited by its retrospective design and lack of information regarding disease-specific survival.

Conclusions

This series suggests a volume–outcome relationship association; patients who have robot-assisted proctectomies performed at low-volume centers are more likely to have poorer overall survival, positive margins, inadequate lymph node harvest, and require conversion to open surgery. While these data demonstrate the increased adoption of robot-assisted proctectomy, an understanding of the appropriateness of this intervention is still lacking. As with any new intervention, further information from ongoing randomized controlled trials is needed to better clarify the role of RP in order to optimize patient outcomes.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Marcus HJ et al (2017) Trends in the diffusion of robotic surgery: a retrospective observational study. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 13:e1870CrossRef Marcus HJ et al (2017) Trends in the diffusion of robotic surgery: a retrospective observational study. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 13:e1870CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ, Fazio VW (2003) Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1633–1639CrossRef Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ, Fazio VW (2003) Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1633–1639CrossRef
3.
go back to reference D’Annibale A et al (2004) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 47:2162–2168CrossRef D’Annibale A et al (2004) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 47:2162–2168CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bianchi PP et al (2013) The role of the robotic technique in minimally invasive surgery in rectal cancer. Ecancermedicalscience 7:357PubMedPubMedCentral Bianchi PP et al (2013) The role of the robotic technique in minimally invasive surgery in rectal cancer. Ecancermedicalscience 7:357PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Jayne D 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 318:1569–1580CrossRef Jayne D 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 318:1569–1580CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Bilimoria KY, Stewart AK, Winchester DP, Ko CY (2008) The national cancer data base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol 15:683–690CrossRef Bilimoria KY, Stewart AK, Winchester DP, Ko CY (2008) The national cancer data base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol 15:683–690CrossRef
7.
go back to reference World Health Organization (2013) International classification of diseases for oncology, 3rd edn. World Health Organization, Geneva World Health Organization (2013) International classification of diseases for oncology, 3rd edn. World Health Organization, Geneva
8.
go back to reference StataCorp LLC (2017) StataCorp. StataCorp LLC, College Station StataCorp LLC (2017) StataCorp. StataCorp LLC, College Station
10.
go back to reference Fleshman J et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 314:1346–1355CrossRef Fleshman J et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 314:1346–1355CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Fleshman J et al (2019) Disease-free survival and local recurrence for laparoscopic resection compared with open resection of stage II to III rectal cancer: follow-up results of the ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg 269(4):589–595CrossRef Fleshman J et al (2019) Disease-free survival and local recurrence for laparoscopic resection compared with open resection of stage II to III rectal cancer: follow-up results of the ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg 269(4):589–595CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Pigazzi A et al (2010) Multicentric study on robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1614–1620CrossRef Pigazzi A et al (2010) Multicentric study on robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1614–1620CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Ortiz-Oshiro E et al (2012) Robotic assistance may reduce conversion to open in rectal carcinoma laparoscopic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 8:360–370CrossRef Ortiz-Oshiro E et al (2012) Robotic assistance may reduce conversion to open in rectal carcinoma laparoscopic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 8:360–370CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Kim CW et al (2015) Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery for rectal cancer focusing on short-term outcomes. Medicine 94:e823CrossRef Kim CW et al (2015) Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery for rectal cancer focusing on short-term outcomes. Medicine 94:e823CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Baek J-H et al (2013) The association of hospital volume with rectal cancer surgery outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:191–196CrossRef Baek J-H et al (2013) The association of hospital volume with rectal cancer surgery outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:191–196CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Chioreso C et al (2018) Association between hospital and surgeon volume and rectal cancer surgery outcomes in patients with rectal cancer treated since 2000: systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 61:1320CrossRef Chioreso C et al (2018) Association between hospital and surgeon volume and rectal cancer surgery outcomes in patients with rectal cancer treated since 2000: systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 61:1320CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Guend H et al (2017) Developing a robotic colorectal cancer surgery program: understanding institutional and individual learning curves. Surg Endosc 31:2820–2828CrossRef Guend H et al (2017) Developing a robotic colorectal cancer surgery program: understanding institutional and individual learning curves. Surg Endosc 31:2820–2828CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Wilson CB (2006) Surgery: adoption of new surgical technology. BMJ 332(7533):112–114CrossRef Wilson CB (2006) Surgery: adoption of new surgical technology. BMJ 332(7533):112–114CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Harmon JW et al (1999) Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. Ann Surg 230:404CrossRef Harmon JW et al (1999) Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. Ann Surg 230:404CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The volume–outcome relationship in robotic protectectomy: does center volume matter? Results of a national cohort study
Authors
Seth J. Concors
Douglas R. Murken
Paul T. Hernandez
Najjia N. Mahmoud
E. Carter Paulson
Publication date
01-10-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 10/2020
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07227-6

Other articles of this Issue 10/2020

Surgical Endoscopy 10/2020 Go to the issue