Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 2/2020

14.05.2019 | Surgery

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

verfasst von: David Wei, Stephen Johnston, Laura Goldstein, Deborah Nagle

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 2/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

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.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
7.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
9.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
11.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Montori VM, Guyatt GH (2001) Intention-to-treat principle. CMAJ 2001(165):1339–1341 Montori VM, Guyatt GH (2001) Intention-to-treat principle. CMAJ 2001(165):1339–1341
14.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
21.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
24.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
27.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Murray AC, Chiuzan C, Kiran RP (2016) Risk of anastomotic leak after laparoscopic versus open colectomy. Surg Endosc 30:5275–5282CrossRef Murray AC, Chiuzan C, Kiran RP (2016) Risk of anastomotic leak after laparoscopic versus open colectomy. Surg Endosc 30:5275–5282CrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
42.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
Metadaten
Titel
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
verfasst von
David Wei
Stephen Johnston
Laura Goldstein
Deborah Nagle
Publikationsdatum
14.05.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06805-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2020

Surgical Endoscopy 2/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

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

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

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“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar 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“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

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.