Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 7/2016

20.10.2015

Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for total abdominal colectomy

verfasst von: Zhobin Moghadamyeghaneh, Mark H. Hanna, Joseph C. Carmichael, Alessio Pigazzi, Michael J. Stamos, Steven Mills

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 7/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

The utilization of minimally invasive surgery is increasing in colorectal surgery. We sought to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent elective open, laparoscopic, and robotic total abdominal colectomy.

Methods

The NIS database was used to examine the clinical data of patients who underwent an elective total colectomy procedure during 2009–2012. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to compare the three surgical approaches.

Results

We sampled a total of 26,721 patients who underwent elective total colectomy. Of these, 16,780 (62.8 %) had an open operation, while 9934 (37.2 %) had a minimally invasive approach (9614 laparoscopic surgery, and 326 robotic surgery). The most common indication for an operation was ulcerative colitis (31 %). Patients who underwent open surgery had significantly higher mortality and morbidity compared to laparoscopic (AOR 2.48, 1.30, P < 0.01) and robotic approaches (AOR 1.04, 1.30, P < 0.01 and P = 0.04, respectively). There was no significant difference in mortality and morbidity between the laparoscopic and robotic approaches (AOR 0.96, 1.03, P = 0.10, P = 0.78). However, conversion rate of laparoscopic surgery to open was significantly higher than that of robotic approach (13.3 vs. 1.5 %, P < 0.01). Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery had significantly lower total hospital charges compared to patients who underwent open surgery (mean difference = $21,489, P < 0.01). Also, total hospital charges for a robotic approach were significantly higher than for a laparoscopic approach (mean difference = $15,595, P < 0.01).

Conclusion

Minimally invasive approaches to total colectomy are safe, with the advantage of lower mortality and morbidity compared to an open approach. Although there was no significant difference in the morbidity between minimally invasive approaches, robotic surgery had a significantly lower conversion rate compared to laparoscopic approach. Total hospital charges are significantly higher in robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic approach.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Fowler DL, White SA (1991) Laparoscopy-assisted sigmoid resection. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1(3):183–188PubMed Fowler DL, White SA (1991) Laparoscopy-assisted sigmoid resection. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1(3):183–188PubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS (1991) Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1(3):144–150PubMed Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS (1991) Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1(3):144–150PubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Masoomi H, Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Mills S, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A, Stamos MJ (2015) Risk factors for conversion of laparoscopic colorectal surgery to open surgery: does conversion worsen outcome? World J Surg 39(5):1240–1247CrossRefPubMed Masoomi H, Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Mills S, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A, Stamos MJ (2015) Risk factors for conversion of laparoscopic colorectal surgery to open surgery: does conversion worsen outcome? World J Surg 39(5):1240–1247CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim WR, Baek SJ, Kim CW et al (2014) Comparative study of oncologic outcomes for laparoscopic vs. open surgery in transverse colon cancer. Ann Surg Treat Res 86(1):28–34CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kim WR, Baek SJ, Kim CW et al (2014) Comparative study of oncologic outcomes for laparoscopic vs. open surgery in transverse colon cancer. Ann Surg Treat Res 86(1):28–34CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Yamamoto S, Watanabe M, Hasegawa H, Kitajima M (2001) Oncologic outcome of laparoscopic versus open surgery for advanced colorectal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 48(41):1248–1251PubMed Yamamoto S, Watanabe M, Hasegawa H, Kitajima M (2001) Oncologic outcome of laparoscopic versus open surgery for advanced colorectal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 48(41):1248–1251PubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Cho JH, Lim DR, Hur H et al (2012) Oncologic outcomes of a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer: results of a 3-year follow-up. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 28(1):42–48CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cho JH, Lim DR, Hur H et al (2012) Oncologic outcomes of a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer: results of a 3-year follow-up. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 28(1):42–48CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Himpens J, Leman G, Cadiere GB (1998) Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 12(8):1091CrossRefPubMed Himpens J, Leman G, Cadiere GB (1998) Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 12(8):1091CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Heemskerk J, Zandbergen R, Maessen JG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND (2006) Advantages of advanced laparoscopic systems. Surg Endosc 20(5):730–733CrossRefPubMed Heemskerk J, Zandbergen R, Maessen JG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND (2006) Advantages of advanced laparoscopic systems. Surg Endosc 20(5):730–733CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Ayav A, Bresler L, Hubert J, Brunaud L, Boissel P (2005) Robotic-assisted pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Surg Endosc 19(9):1200–1203CrossRefPubMed Ayav A, Bresler L, Hubert J, Brunaud L, Boissel P (2005) Robotic-assisted pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Surg Endosc 19(9):1200–1203CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Munz Y, Moorthy K, Kudchadkar R et al (2004) Robotic assisted rectopexy. Am J Surg 187(1):88–92CrossRefPubMed Munz Y, Moorthy K, Kudchadkar R et al (2004) Robotic assisted rectopexy. Am J Surg 187(1):88–92CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Heemskerk J, de Hoog DE, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND (2007) Robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time. Dis Colon Rectum 50(11):1825–1830CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Heemskerk J, de Hoog DE, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND (2007) Robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time. Dis Colon Rectum 50(11):1825–1830CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Zerey M, Hawver LM, Awad Z et al (2013) SAGES evidence-based guidelines for the laparoscopic resection of curable colon and rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 27(1):1–10CrossRefPubMed Zerey M, Hawver LM, Awad Z et al (2013) SAGES evidence-based guidelines for the laparoscopic resection of curable colon and rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 27(1):1–10CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Da Luz Moreira A, Mor I, Geisler DP, Remzi FH, Kiran RP (2011) Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc 25(1):278–283CrossRefPubMed Da Luz Moreira A, Mor I, Geisler DP, Remzi FH, Kiran RP (2011) Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc 25(1):278–283CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Ohtani H, Tamamori Y, Azuma T et al (2011) A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopy-assisted and conventional open surgery for rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 15(8):1375–1385CrossRefPubMed Ohtani H, Tamamori Y, Azuma T et al (2011) A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopy-assisted and conventional open surgery for rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 15(8):1375–1385CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim CW, Kim CH, Baik SH (2014) Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 18(4):816–830CrossRefPubMed Kim CW, Kim CH, Baik SH (2014) Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 18(4):816–830CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Bertani E, Chiappa A, Ubiali P, Cossu ML, Arnone P, Andreoni B (2013) Robotic colectomy: is it necessary? Minerva Chir 68(5):445–456PubMed Bertani E, Chiappa A, Ubiali P, Cossu ML, Arnone P, Andreoni B (2013) Robotic colectomy: is it necessary? Minerva Chir 68(5):445–456PubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Kaiser AM, Katkhouda N (2002) Laparoscopic management of the perforated viscus. Semin Laparosc Surg 9(1):46–53CrossRefPubMed Kaiser AM, Katkhouda N (2002) Laparoscopic management of the perforated viscus. Semin Laparosc Surg 9(1):46–53CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Agresta F, De Simone P, Bedin N (2004) The laparoscopic approach in abdominal emergencies: a single-center 10-year experience. JSLS 8(1):25–30PubMedPubMedCentral Agresta F, De Simone P, Bedin N (2004) The laparoscopic approach in abdominal emergencies: a single-center 10-year experience. JSLS 8(1):25–30PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Juo YY, Hyder O, Haider AH, Camp M, Lidor A, Ahuja N (2014) Is minimally invasive colon resection better than traditional approaches? First comprehensive national examination with propensity score matching. JAMA Surg 149(2):177–184CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Juo YY, Hyder O, Haider AH, Camp M, Lidor A, Ahuja N (2014) Is minimally invasive colon resection better than traditional approaches? First comprehensive national examination with propensity score matching. JAMA Surg 149(2):177–184CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum. Surg Endosc 26(1):1–11CrossRefPubMed Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum. Surg Endosc 26(1):1–11CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Trastulli S, Farinella E, Cirocchi R et al (2012) Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome. Colorectal Dis 14(4):e134–e156CrossRefPubMed Trastulli S, Farinella E, Cirocchi R et al (2012) Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome. Colorectal Dis 14(4):e134–e156CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Cadière GB, Himpens J, Germay O et al (2001) Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg 25(11):1467–1477PubMed Cadière GB, Himpens J, Germay O et al (2001) Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg 25(11):1467–1477PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for total abdominal colectomy
verfasst von
Zhobin Moghadamyeghaneh
Mark H. Hanna
Joseph C. Carmichael
Alessio Pigazzi
Michael J. Stamos
Steven Mills
Publikationsdatum
20.10.2015
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 7/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4552-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 7/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

CME: 2 Punkte

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht, PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske Das Webinar S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“ beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.