Technique of last resort: characteristics of patients undergoing open surgery in the laparoscopic era

Influence of surgeon specialty and volume on the utilization of minimally invasive surgery and outcomes for colorectal cancer: a retrospective review

BACKGROUND

Utilization of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has multiple determinants, one being the specialization of the surgeon. The purpose of this study was to assess the differences in the utilization of MIS, associated length of stay (LOS), and complications for colorectal cancer between colorectal (CRS) and general surgeons (GS). Previous studies have documented the influence of surgical volume and surgeon specialty on clinical outcomes and patient survival following colorectal cancer surgery. It is unclear whether there are differences in the utilization of MIS for colorectal cancer based on surgeon's specialization and how this influences clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Using the 2013-2015 Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset and the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System, colorectal cancer patients experiencing a colorectal surgery were identified as well as the operating physician's specialty. Mixed-effects regression models were used to identify associations between the use of MIS, complications during the hospital stay, and patient LOS with patient, physician, and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

There is no difference in the use of MIS, complication, nor LOS between GS and CRS for colorectal cancer surgery. However, physician volume was associated with increased use of MIS (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09, 1.46) and MIS was associated with decreases in certain complications as well as reductions in LOS overall (β = - 0.16, p < 0.001) and for each specialty (GS: β = - 0.18, p < 0.001; CRS β = - 0.12, p < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher amount of proctectomies performed by CRS, no difference in MIS utilization, complication rate, or LOS was found for colorectal cancer patients based on surgeon specialty. While there are some differences in clinical outcomes attributable to specialized training, results from this study indicate that differences in surgical approach (MIS vs. Open), as well as the patient populations encountered by these two specialties, are key factors in the outcomes observed.

Hybrid minimally invasive/open approach versus total minimally invasive approach for rectal cancer resection: short- and long-term results

OBJECTIVES

To reduce the technical challenges of a totally minimally invasive approach (TMA) and to decrease the morbidity associated with open surgery, a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach (HMOA) has been introduced as a surgical technique for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative results and long-term oncologic outcomes between hybrid minimally invasive/open approach and totally minimally invasive approach in patients who underwent rectal resection for cancer.

METHODS

All patients with rectal cancer undergoing a totally minimally invasive approach or hybrid minimally invasive/open approach proctectomy between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed. Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected from a prospectively maintained institutional database.

RESULTS

Among 283 patients, 138 (48.8%) underwent a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach and 145 (51.2%) a totally minimally invasive approach. Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups except for distance from the anal verge, which was lower in totally minimally invasive approach group (50.7% vs 29%; p = 0.0008). Length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer in the hybrid minimally invasive/open approach group (6.4 vs 4.3; p = < 0.0001). The median follow-up was 29.6 (14-40.6) months. Overall survival and disease-free survival were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach, a totally minimally invasive approach has a shorter length of stay and may improve short-term outcomes in patients undergoing proctectomy for cancer.

Factors Associated With Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in Emergency Settings

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with improved colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes, but it is used less frequently in emergency settings. We aimed to assess patient-level factors associated with emergency presentation for CRC and the use of MIS in emergency versus elective settings.

METHODS

This retrospective study examined the clinical data of patients who underwent emergency and elective resections for CRC from 2013 to 2015 using the Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess differences in gender, age, race, urbanization, region, insurance, and clinical characteristics associated with mode of presentation and surgical approach. In-hospital mortality and length of stay by mode of presentation were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 16,277 patients identified, 10,224 (61%) had elective surgery and 6503 (39%) had emergency surgery. Emergency presentations were more likely to be black (14.2% versus 9.5%), Hispanic (18.9% versus 15.4%), Medicaid-insured (9.7% versus 4.2%), and have metastatic cancer (34.4% versus 20.2%) or multiple comorbidities (12.6% versus 4.0%). MIS was the surgical approach in 31.8% of emergency cases versus 48.1% of elective cases. Factors associated with lower odds of MIS for emergencies include Medicaid (odds ratio (OR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.99), metastases (OR 0.56, CI 0.5-0.63), and multiple comorbidities (OR 0.53, CI 0.4-0.7). Emergency cases experienced higher in-hospital mortality (3.7% versus 1.0%) and a longer median length of stay (10 d versus 5 d).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency CRC presentations are associated with racial minorities, Medicaid insurance, metastatic disease, and multiple comorbidities. Odds of MIS in emergency settings are lowest for patients with Medicaid insurance and highest clinical disease burden.

Trends in the Use of Laparoscopy and Robotics for Colorectal Cancer in Florida

Background: Laparoscopy and more recently robotics are increasingly used for colorectal cancer surgery in the United States. We examined the current trends of minimally invasive surgical resections for colorectal cancer in Florida. Methods: The Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset was used to examine the clinical data of patients who underwent elective surgery for colorectal cancer during 2013-2015. Multivariate analyses were performed to compare patient characteristics associated with the use of open and minimally invasive surgeries. Results: A total of 10,513 patients were analyzed; 5451 (52%) had open surgery, 4403 (42%) laparoscopy, and 659 (6%) robotic surgery. The rates of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) increased from 46.95% in 2013 to 48.72% in 2015. Among minimally invasive surgical procedures, the use of robotics increased from 9.82% in 2013 to 15.48% in 2015. Metastatic cancer (odds ratio [OR] 0.61, confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.67), Elixhauser score of 3-5 (OR 0.85, CI 0.76-0.95) or more than 5 (OR 0.78, CI 0.63-0.97), Medicaid insurance (OR 0.73, CI 0.6-0.89), Black race (OR 0.88, CI 0.77-0.99), and rural residence (OR 0.83, CI 0.69-0.99) were associated with lower odds of MIS than open surgery. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the overall rates of MIS for colorectal cancer in Florida increased from 2013 to 2015. Socially deprived and very sick patient populations with colorectal cancer are less likely to undergo MIS.

Disparities in minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer in Florida

BACKGROUND

The cost of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) raises potential for racial and social disparities. The aim of this study was to identify the racial, socioeconomic and geographic disparities associated with MIS for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Florida.

METHODS

Using the Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset, we examined the clinical data of patients who underwent elective resections for CRC during 2013-2015. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify differences in gender, age, race, urbanization, region, insurance and clinical characteristics associated with the surgical approach.

RESULTS

Of the 10,224 patients identified, 5308 (52%) had open surgery and 4916 (48%) had MIS. Females (p = 0.012), Medicare-insured patients (p = 0.001) and residents of South Florida were more likely to undergo MIS. Patients with Medicaid (p = 0.008), metastasis (p < 0.001) or 3-5 comorbidities (p = 0.004) had reduced likelihood of MIS. Hispanic patients in Southwest Florida had reduced likelihood of receiving MIS than whites (p < 0.017). Patients who underwent MIS had significantly reduced LOS (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with national studies, MIS for CRC in Florida is associated with insurance status and geographic location. There are patient-level regional differences for racial disparities in MIS for CRC in Florida.

Colorectal surgeons should be open to modern surgical technologies for challenging cases

Today, colorectal surgeons globally are practicing in an exciting era where surgical technologies are constantly emerging. Most of these cutting-edge technologies are readily available in Australia and New Zealand at present. Thus the 'modern surgeon' should always be defined by this open-minded attitude towards these new and emerging surgical technologies. This review article highlights current modalities that we have been using in our north-Brisbane public and private hospitals for cases predicted to be technically challenging using minimally invasive approaches for most of them. We examined the current evidence regarding the following modalities and critiqued their use in clinical practice: lighted ureteric stents, minimally invasive surgery approaches of laparoscopy and robotic surgery, pressure barrier insufflation devices, 3D camera systems, hand-assist device ports and indocyanine green dye fluorescence angiography. The objective of this review paper is to alert colorectal surgeons to new surgical technologies available to them, to encourage colorectal surgeons' familiarization with these many technologies, and to support evidence-based consideration for the clinical use of such. These technologies should be supplemental aides to the safe, oncologically adequate and efficient operation that they already routinely perform.

Selection Bias in Colorectal Surgery in a Non-Tertiary Hospital: Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopy is used increasingly to treat malignant and benign colorectal surgical diseases. However, this practice is still not offered to all patients. Many barriers halt the widespread use of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Both surgeon's and patient's factors contribute to limit a wider use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 408 consecutive colorectal resections in a 4-year period, to find out if a selection bias exists in using laparotomy or laparoscopy for colorectal surgical diseases, and which factors are associated with a poor use of laparoscopy or to a preferred laparotomy.

RESULTS

In our practice, advanced disease, American Society of Anesthesiologist class III and IV, and emergency status are all patient-related factors associated with laparotomy. Surgeon's age more than 52 years and lack of laparoscopic training are surgeon-related factors that negatively affect the chance of being operated on with the laparoscopic technique.

CONCLUSIONS

An extensive laparoscopic colorectal training and a supporting environment, especially during the night shift, are needed to facilitate the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery avoiding a bias in selecting surgical candidates to one technique or another.

Laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients: a comparison of laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic techniques

BACKGROUND

Recent American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP)-based evidence indicates that laparoscopic (LAP) colectomy results in improved outcomes compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) colectomy in the general population. Previous comparative studies demonstrated that the HAL technique offers distinct advantages for obese patients. The aim of this study was to perform comparative analyses of HAL and LAP colectomy and low anterior resection (LAR) in obese patients.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP public use file and targeted colectomy dataset, 2012-2014, were utilized for patients undergoing colectomy and LAR. Only obese patients (BMI > 30) and laparoscopic or hand-assisted operations were included. Patient, operation, and outcome variables were compared in two separate cohorts: colectomy and LAR. Bivariate analysis compared the approaches, followed by multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Of 9610 obese patients included, HAL and LAP colectomy were performed in 3126 and 3793 patients and LAR in 1431 and 1260 patients, respectively. In comparison to LAP colectomy, HAL colectomy patients had increased comorbidities including class 2 and 3 obesity. HAL colectomy was associated with higher overall morbidity (20 vs. 16%, p < 0.001), infectious complications (10.2 vs. 7.7%, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (3.0 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.03), and ileus (11 vs. 8%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that overall morbidity (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.44), infectious complications (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14-1.59), and ileus (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.12-1.57) were each increased in the HAL colectomy cohort but not different for HAL and LAP LAR.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to LAP colectomy, the HAL technique is used more often in obese patients with an increased operative risk profile. While inherent bias and unmeasured variables limit the analysis, the available data indicate that the HAL technique is associated with increased perioperative morbidity. Alternatively, HAL and LAP LAR are performed in obese patients with a similar risk profile and result in similar postoperative outcomes.