The current status of emergent laparoscopic colectomy: a population-based study of clinical and financial outcomes

Outcomes Following Colectomy at For-Profit Hospitals: A National Analysis

BackgroundOne of the most commonly performed operations in the US, colectomy remains associated with a substantial incidence of postoperative complications. While there is increasing recognition that hospital for-profit financial structure may be linked with variation in morbidity, the impact of care at for-profit (FP) hospitals on outcomes following colectomy remains to be elucidated.MethodsAll adults undergoing elective/emergent colectomy for diverticular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, benign colonic neoplasms, or colon cancer, ≤2days of admission, were tabulated from the Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients were stratified by care at FP centers into the FP and Non-FP cohorts. Following entropy balancing, multivariable models were developed to consider the independent association of FP status with key outcomes.ResultsOf ∼1,130,803 admissions for colectomy, 862 495 (76.3%) were elective. Among electively admitted patients, 74 933 (8.7%) were grouped as FP. After risk adjustment, care at FP institutions was associated with greater odds of major morbidity (AOR 1.27, CI 1.22-1.32), non-home discharge (AOR 1.20, CI 1.13-1.27), and non-elective readmission (AOR 1.26, CI 1.12-1.32), but lower per-patient expenditures (β-$2430/patient, CI -2,860, -2010). Considering the 268 308 emergent cases, 38 568 (14.4%) were managed at FP hospitals. Following multivariable adjustment, treatment at FP hospitals remained associated with increased morbidity (AOR 1.16, CI 1.11-1.21) and decreased costs (β-$5,630, CI -6,210, -5,050).DiscussionUndergoing colectomy at FP hospitals was associated with greater complications and readmissions, but reduced per-patient expenditures. Future research should consider the factors contributing to inferior clinical outcomes at these centers. Best practices should be shared across institutions, irrespective of financial structure.

Minimally invasive approach to peritonitis from left colonic perforation: a retrospective multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic procedures have nowadays become the gold standard in multiple abdominal diseases, but in the emergency setting, especially in major surgery, laparoscopy still represents an obstacle for most surgeons. This multicentric study aims to define the surgical approach for emergency resective surgery in left colonic perforation peritonitis, determine the factors influencing the choice between MIS and open surgery, and identify factors associated with laparotomic conversion.

METHODS

Retrospective data from 516 patients treated for left colonic perforation between January 2019 and December 2023 across six Italian centers was collected. Variables analyzed included patient demographics, disease and surgical characteristics, post-operative complications, and long-term outcomes. Univariate and multivariate regression models were performed to identify factors associated with surgical choice and likelihood of conversion.

RESULTS

Only 24.5% of patients underwent laparoscopic approach, with a conversion rate of 52.8%. MIS was associated to lower CCI and MPI and less severe septic status at arrival. MIS was mostly performed by colorectal surgeons, compared to acute care surgeons. The post-operative outcome, considering LOS, ICU admission, post-operative complications and mortality rate, was better in the MIS group. The multivariate regression model revealed that CCI, MPI, and night-time surgery were negatively associated with MIS while colorectal surgeons had a positive association. Laparotomic conversion more commonly occurred in older patients with a higher MPI and CCI and more severe septic status; these patients had a worse post-operative outcome. MPI was the only factor with statistical significance in the univariate analysis, associated with conversion.

CONCLUSION

Although MIS is associated with better post-operative outcomes, it is underutilized in the emergency setting. Patients requiring laparotomic conversion had higher morbidity and mortality compared to those who underwent successful laparoscopy. Limiting factors for MIS include logistic factors, patient severity, and surgical skills, therefore careful patient selection and surgical training is crucial.

The effect of minimally invasive surgery on thirty-day postoperative outcomes of frail patients undergoing emergency colon resections

BACKGROUND

Frail patients have poor outcomes after emergent colon surgery. While minimally invasive surgery has shown improved outcomes in the general patient population undergoing colectomy, the benefits in frail patients are unknown.

METHODS

We identified frail patients who underwent urgent or emergent colon resections from 2017 to 2021 in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. We defined frail as a score of 2 or greater on the modified frailty index. We used inverse probability of treatment weighted analysis to determine the association of surgical technique with 30-day postoperative outcomes independent of confounding variables.

RESULTS

Of the 11,976 frail patients, 10,293 (87.2%) underwent open surgery and 1,503 (12.7%) underwent minimally invasive surgery. Patients who underwent open surgery had significantly more comorbid conditions. The most common diagnosis for patients who underwent open surgery was intra-abdominal sepsis (59.6%) and neoplasms for patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (42%). After the inverse probability of treatment weighted analysis, the standardized difference was reduced to 1.7% or less. At 30 days from surgery, minimally invasive surgery was independently associated with reduced risk of death: 4.6% (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-0.97; P < .001), severe complications: 6.9% (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.95, P < .001), any complication: 8.8% (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.94, P < .001), septic shock: 5.9% (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.96 P < .001), postoperative bleeding: 4% (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-0.98, P < .001), hospital stay >14 days: 4.2% (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.99, P = .02).

CONCLUSION

In this vulnerable population of frail patients, minimally invasive surgery was associated with reduced risk of morbidity and mortality in the 30 days after emergency colectomy. A minimally invasive surgery approach should be considered in emergency colon surgeries, provided proficient resources are available.

National analysis of racial disparities in emergent surgery for colorectal cancer

Background

Racial disparities in access to preoperative evaluation for colorectal cancer remain unclear. Emergent admission may indicate lack of access to timely care. The present work aimed to evaluate the association of admission type with race among patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.

Methods

All adults undergoing resection for colorectal cancer in 2011-2020 National Inpatient Sample were identified. Multivariable regression models were developed to examine the association of admission type with race. Primary outcome was major adverse events (MAE), including mortality and complications. Secondary outcomes included costs and length of stay (LOS). Interaction terms between year, admission type, and race were used to analyze trends.

Results

Of 722,736 patients, 67.6 % had Elective and 32.4 % Emergent admission. Black (AOR 1.38 [95 % CI 1.33-1.44]), Hispanic (1.45 [1.38-1.53]), and Asian/Pacific Islander or Native American (1.25 [1.18-1.32]) race were associated with significantly increased odds of Emergent operation relative to White. Over the study period, non-White patients consistently comprised over 5 % greater proportion of the Emergent cohort compared to Elective. Furthermore, Emergent admission was associated with 3-fold increase in mortality and complications, 5-day increment in LOS, and $10,100 increase in costs. MAE rates among Emergent patients remained greater than Elective with a widening gap over time. Non-White patients experienced significantly increased MAE regardless of admission type.

Conclusion

Non-White race was associated with increased odds of emergent colorectal cancer resection. Given the persistent disparity over the past decade, systematic approaches to alleviate racial inequities in colorectal cancer screening and improve access to timely surgical treatment are warranted.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement.

RESULTS

A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Preoperative stents for the treatment of obstructing left-sided colon cancer: a national analysis

BACKGROUND

Given the risks associated with urgent colectomy for large bowel obstruction, preoperative colonic stenting has been utilized for decompression and optimization prior to surgery. This study examined national trends in the use of colonic stenting as a bridge to resection for malignant large bowel obstruction and evaluated outcomes relative to immediate colectomy.

METHODS

Adults undergoing colonic stenting or colectomy for malignant, left/sigmoid large bowel obstruction were identified in the 2010-2016 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients were classified as immediate resection (IR) or delayed resection (DR) if undergoing colonic stenting prior to colectomy. Generalized linear models were used to evaluate the impact of resection strategy on ostomy creation, in-hospital mortality, and complications.

RESULTS

Among 9,706 patients, 9.7% underwent colonic stenting, which increased from 7.7 to 16.4% from 2010 to 2016 (p < 0.001). Compared to IR, the DR group was younger (63.9 vs 65.9 years, p = 0.04), had fewer comorbidities (Elixhauser Index 3.5 vs 3.9, p = 0.001), and was more commonly managed at high-volume centers (89.4% vs 68.1%, p < 0.001). Laparoscopic resections were more frequent among the DR group (33.1% vs 13.0%, p < 0.001), while ostomy rates were significantly lower (21.5% vs 53.0%, p < 0.001). After risk adjustment, colonic stenting was associated with reduced odds of ostomy creation (0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.24-0.46), but similar odds of mortality and complications.

CONCLUSION

Colonic stenting is increasingly utilized for malignant, left-sided bowel obstructions, and associated with lower ostomy rates but comparable clinical outcomes. These findings suggest the relative safety of colonic stenting for malignant large bowel obstruction when clinically appropriate.

Risk factors for a permanent stoma after resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer - A prediction model

INTRODUCTION

In patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC), a stoma is often constructed as part of primary treatment, but with a considerable risk of becoming a permanent stoma (PS). The aim of this retrospective multicentre cohort is to identify risk factors for a PS in LSOCC and to develop a pre- and postoperative prediction model for PS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data was retrospectively obtained from 75 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients who had curative resection of LSOCC between January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2016 were included with a minimum follow-up of 6 months after resection. The interventions analysed were emergency resection, decompressing stoma or stent as bridge-to-elective resection. Main outcome measure was presence of PS at the end of follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for PS at primary presentation (T₀) and after resection, in patients having a stoma in situ (T₁). These risk factors were used to construct a web-based prediction tool.

RESULTS

Of 2099 patients included in the study (T₀), 779 had a PS (37%). A total of 1275 patients had a stoma in situ directly after resection (T₁), of whom 674 had a PS (53%). Median follow-up was 34 months. Multivariable analysis showed that older patients, female sex, high ASA-score and open approach were independent predictors for PS in both the T₀ and T₁ population. Other predictors at T₀ were sigmoid location, low Hb, high CRP, cM1 stage, and emergency resection. At T₁, subtotal colectomy, no primary anastomosis, not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and high pTNM stage were additional predictors. Two predictive models were built, with an AUC of 0.74 for T₀ and an AUC of 0.81 for T₁.

CONCLUSIONS

PS is seen in 37% of the patients who have resection of LSOCC. In patients with a stoma in situ directly after resection, 53% PS are seen due to non-reversal. Not only baseline characteristics, but also treatment strategies determine the risk of a PS in patients with LSOCC. The developed predictive models will give physicians insight in the role of the individual variables on the risk of a PS and help in informing the patient about the probability of a PS.

Laparoscopic versus open emergent colectomy for ischemic colitis: a propensity score-matched comparison

Introduction

Laparoscopic colectomy is rarely performed for ischemic colitis. The aim of this propensity score-matched study was to compare preoperative characteristics, intraoperative details and short-term outcomes for emergent laparoscopic colectomy versus the traditional open approach for patients with ischemic colitis.

Methods

Retrospective review of 96 patients who underwent emergent colectomy for ischemic colitis between January 2011 and December 2020 (39 via laparoscopy, 57 via laparotomy) was performed. We compared short-term outcomes after using a one-to-one ratio and nearest-neighbor propensity score matching to obtain similar preoperative and intraoperative parameters in each group.

Results

Patients in the open group experienced more surgical site complications (52.6% vs. 23.0%, p = 0.004), more intra-abdominal abscesses (47.3% vs. 17.9%, p = 0.003), longer need for ventilator support (20 days vs. 0 days, p < 0.001), more major complications (77.2% vs. 43.5%, p = 0.001), higher mortality (49.1% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.004), and longer hospital stay (32 days vs. 19 days, p = 0.001). After propensity score matching (31 patients in each group), patients undergoing open (vs. laparoscopy) had more surgical site complications (45.1% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.030) and required longer ventilator support (14 vs. 3 days, p = 0.039). After multivariate analysis, Charlson Comorbidity Index (p = 0.024), APACHE II score (p = 0.001), and Favier’s classification (p = 0.023) were independent predictors of mortality.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic emergent colectomy for ischemic colitis is feasible and is associated with fewer surgical site complications and better respiratory function, compared to the open approach.

Minimally Invasive Surgery is Associated with Improved Outcomes Following Urgent Inpatient Colectomy

Objectives

The use of minimally invasive techniques for urgent colectomies remains understudied. This study compares short-term outcomes following urgent minimally invasive colectomies to those following open colectomies.

Methods & Procedures

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) colectomy database was queried between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2018. Patients who underwent elective and emergency colectomies, based on the respective NSQIP variables, were excluded. The remaining patients were divided into two groups, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open. MIS colectomies with unplanned conversion to open were included in the MIS group. Baseline characteristics and 30-day outcomes were compared using univariable and multivariable regression analyses.

Results

A total of 29,345 patients were included in the study; 12,721 (43.3%) underwent MIS colectomy, while 16,624 (56.7%) underwent open colectomy. Patients undergoing MIS colectomy were younger (60.6 vs 63.8 years) and had a lower prevalence of either American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) IV (9.9 vs 15.5%) or ASA V (0.08% vs 2%). After multivariable analysis, MIS colectomy was associated with lower odds of mortality (odds ratio = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.61, 0.91 95% confidence interval), and most short-term complications recorded in the ACS NSQIP. While MIS colectomies took longer to perform (161 vs 140 min), the length of stay was shorter (12.2 vs 14.1 days).

Conclusions

MIS colectomy affords better short-term complication rates and a reduced length of stay compared to open colectomy for patients requiring urgent surgery. If feasible, minimally invasive colectomy should be offered to patients necessitating urgent colon resection.

Laparoscopic Colectomy for Acute Diverticulitis in the Urgent Setting is Associated with Similar Outcomes to Open

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for the surgical treatment of diverticular disease is evolving. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of MIS colectomy to those of open surgery for patients with acute diverticulitis requiring urgent surgery.

METHODS

The American college of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried for all patients undergoing an urgent colectomy for acute diverticulitis between 2013 and 2018. The patients were then divided into 2 groups: MIS and open. Baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes were compared using univariable and multivariable regression analyses.

RESULTS/OUTCOMES

3487 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 1272 (36.5%) underwent MIS colectomy and 2215 (63.5%) underwent open colectomy. Patients undergoing MIS colectomy were younger (58.7 vs 61.9 years) and less likely to be American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification (ASA) III (52.5 vs 57.9%) or IV (6.3 vs 10.5%). After adjusting for baseline differences, the odds of mortality for MIS and open groups were similar. While there was no difference in short-term complications between groups, the odds of developing an ileus were lower following MIS colectomy (OR .61, 95% CI: .49, .76). Both total length of stay (LOS) (12.3 vs 13.9 days) and post-operative LOS (7.6 days vs 9.5 days) were shorter for MIS colectomy. Minimally invasive surgery colectomy added an additional 40 minutes of operative time (202.2 vs 160.1 min).

CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION

Minimally invasive surgery colectomy appears to be safe for patients requiring urgent surgical management for acute diverticulitis. Decreased incidence of ileus and shorter LOS may justify any additional operative time for MIS colectomy in suitable candidates.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Colorectal Surgery in the Emergency Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare published outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open emergency colorectal surgery, with mortality as primary outcome.

Background

In contrast to the elective setting, the value of laparoscopic emergency colorectal surgery remains unclear.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched until January 6, 2021. Only comparative studies were included. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effect model. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for quality assessment.

Results

Overall, 28 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial were included, comprising 7865 laparoscopy patients and 55,862 open surgery patients. Quality assessment revealed 'good quality' in 16 of 28 observational studies, and low to intermediate risk of bias for the randomized trial. Laparoscopy was associated with significantly lower postoperative mortality compared to open surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.54). Laparoscopy resulted in significantly less postoperative overall morbidity (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65), wound infection (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88), wound dehiscence (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.18-0.77), ileus (OR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.51-0.91), pulmonary (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.78) and cardiac complications (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.90), and shorter length of stay. No meta-analyses were performed for long-term outcomes due to scarcity of data.

Conclusions

The systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a benefit of laparoscopy for emergency colorectal surgery, with a lower risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity. However, the almost exclusive use of retrospective observational study designs with inherent biases should be taken into account.

Urgent Inpatient Colectomy Carries a Higher Morbidity and Mortality than Elective Surgery

BACKGROUND

Emergency colorectal surgery confers a higher risk of adverse outcomes compared to elective surgery. Few studies have examined the outcomes after urgent colectomies, typically defined as those performed at the index admission, but not performed at admission in an emergency fashion. The aim of this study is to evaluate the risk of adverse outcomes following urgent inpatient colorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All adult patients undergoing colectomy between 2013 and 2017 in the ACS NSQIP were included in the analysis. Patients were grouped into Elective, Urgent and Emergency groups. The Urgent group was further stratified by time from admission to surgery. Baseline characteristics and 30 day outcomes were compared between the Elective, Urgent and Emergency groups using univariable and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

104,486 patients underwent elective colorectal resection. 23,179 underwent urgent while 22,241 had emergency resections. Patients undergoing urgent colectomy presented with increased comorbidities, and experienced higher mortality (2.5-4.1%, AOR 2.3 (1.9 - 2.8)) compared to elective surgery (0.4%). Urgent colectomy was an independent risk factor for the majority of short term complications documented in NSQIP. Moreover, patients undergoing urgent colectomy more than a week following admission had an increased risk of bleeding, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, urinary tract infection, and prolonged hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Urgent colectomies are associated with a greater risk of adverse outcomes compared to elective surgery. Urgent status is an independent risk factor for post operative mortality and morbidity. Further characterization of this patient population and their specific challenges may help ameliorate these adverse events.

Predictors of mortality following emergency open colectomy for ischemic colitis: a single-center experience

Background

Ischemic colitis (IC) is a severe emergency in gastrointestinal surgery. The aim of the present study was to identify the predictors of postoperative mortality after emergent open colectomy for IC treatment. Additionally, we compared postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing emergent colectomy due to aortic surgery-related IC (AS-IC group) vs. other IC etiologies (Other-IC group).

Methods

We analyzed records of consecutive patients who underwent emergency open colectomy for IC between 2008 and 2019. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify clinical and operative parameters associated with postoperative mortality. The AS-IC and Other-IC groups were compared for mortality, morbidity, ICU stay, hospital stay, and survival.

Results

During the study period, 94 patients (mean age, 67.4 ± 13.7 years) underwent emergent open colectomy for IC. In the majority of cases, IC involved the entire colon (53.2%) and vasopressor agents were required preoperatively (63.8%) and/or intraoperatively (78.8%). Thirty-four patients underwent surgery due to AS-IC, whereas 60 due to Other-IC causes. In the AS-IC group, 9 patients had undergone endovascular aortic repair and 25 open aortic surgery; 61.8% of patients needed aortic surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurism (AAA). Overall, 66 patients (70.2%) died within 90 days from surgery. The AS-IC and Other-IC groups showed similar operative outcomes and postoperative complication rates. However, the duration of the ICU stay (19 days vs. 11 days; p = 0.003) and of the total hospital stay (22 days vs. 16 days; p = 0.016) was significantly longer for the AS-IC group than for the Other-IC group. The rate of intestinal continuity restoration at 1 year after surgery was higher for the Other-IC group than for the AS-IC group (58.8% vs. 22.2%; p = 0.05). In the multivariate model, preoperative increased lactate levels, a delay between signs/symptoms’ onset and surgery > 12 h, and the occurrence of postoperative acute kidney injury were statistically associated with postoperative mortality. Neither IC etiology (aortic surgery vs. other etiology) nor ruptured AAA was associated with postoperative mortality.

Conclusion

Emergency open colectomy for IC is associated with high postoperative mortality, which appears to be unrelated to the IC etiology. Preoperative lactate levels, > 12-h delay to surgery, and postoperative acute kidney injury are independent predictors of postoperative mortality.

Laparoscopy improves failure to rescue compared to open surgery for emergent colectomy

Emergent colectomy is performed in thousands of Americans each year and carries significant morbidity and mortality. Although laparoscopy has gained favor in the elective setting, its impact on failure to rescue has not been studied on a population level for emergent colectomy. The purpose of this study was to compare failure to rescue following laparoscopic versus open colectomy in the emergency setting. This was a retrospective cohort study of The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Adult patients undergoing emergent colectomy between 2005 and 2018 were selected and stratified into laparoscopic or open surgery groups using the Current Procedural Terminology codes. Propensity matching was performed based on the demographic and comorbidity data. Main outcomes were failure to rescue, mortality, overall morbidity, individual complications, and length of hospital stay. After matching, 11,484 cases were included for analysis, of which 3829 were laparoscopic. Overall, open colectomy conferred higher odds of failure to rescue (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.42-2.08), mortality (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.44-2.07), and morbidity (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.60-1.88) vs laparoscopic cases. Open surgery significantly increased the risk of nearly all measured postoperative complications including return to operating room (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08-1.45), ventilator use > 48 h (OR 2.43, 95% CI 2.03-2.93), and septic shock (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.97-2.80). Hospital length of stay was shorter for patients undergoing laparoscopic (10.4 days) vs open (12.3 days) colectomy (p < 0.0001). This study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic approach for emergent colectomy vs open surgery. Laparoscopy was associated with improved complications rates, mortality, and failure to rescue, indicating that it is a promising option to improve patient outcomes during emergent colectomy.

Role of Emergency Laparoscopic Colectomy for Colorectal Cancer: A Population-based Study in England

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate factors associated with the use of laparoscopic surgery and the associated postoperative outcomes for urgent or emergency resection of colorectal cancer in the English National Health Service.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Laparoscopy is increasingly used for elective colorectal cancer surgery, but uptake has been limited in the emergency setting.

METHODS

Patients recorded in the National Bowel Cancer Audit who underwent urgent or emergency colorectal cancer resection between April 2010 and March 2016 were included. A multivariable multilevel logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of undergoing laparoscopic resection and postoperative outcome according to approach.

RESULTS

There were 15,516 patients included. Laparoscopy use doubled from 15.1% in 2010 to 30.2% in 2016. Laparoscopy was less common in patients with poorer physical status [American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) 4/5 vs 1, OR 0.29 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.23-0.37), P < 0.001] and more advanced T-stage [T4 vs T0-T2, OR 0.28 (0.23-0.34), P < 0.001] and M-stage [M1 vs M0, OR 0.85 (0.75-0.96), P < 0.001]. Age, socioeconomic deprivation, nodal stage, hospital volume, and a dedicated colorectal emergency service were not associated with laparoscopy. Laparoscopic patients had a shorter length of stay [median 8 days (interquartile range (IQR) 5 to 15) vs 12 (IQR 8 to 21), adjusted mean difference -3.67 (-4.60 to 2.74), P < 0.001], and lower 90-day mortality [8.1% vs 13.0%; adjusted OR 0.78 (0.66-0.91), P = 0.004] than patients undergoing open resection. There was no significant difference in rates of readmission or reoperation by approach.

CONCLUSION

The use of laparoscopic approach in the emergency resection of colorectal cancer is linked to a shorter length of hospital stay and reduced postoperative mortality.

Perforated Peptic Ulcer Surgery: Decreased Length of Stay but No Difference in Mortality with Laparoscopic Repair

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) surgery mortality ranges 1% to 24%. We hypothesized a decrease in length of stay (LOS) with laparoscopic surgical repair (LSR) compared with open surgical repair (OSR).

METHODS

Patients undergoing PPU surgery 2005 to 2015 were identified in NSQIP. LSR was compared with OSR 2005 to 2015. LSR 2005 to 2010 was compared with 2011 to 2015. OSR 2005 to 2010 was compared with 2011 to 2015. The primary outcome was LOS. Secondary outcomes were mortality and morbidity.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2015, LSR had a decreased LOS, was more likely to wean from the ventilator, but had no significant difference in mortality compared with OSR. There was no significant difference in mortality for LSR or OSR over time.

CONCLUSIONS

When patients are appropriately selected, LSR for PPU is a viable alternative to OSR, decreasing LOS and pulmonary complications. This demonstrates significant benefit to patients and hospital throughput.

Emergent Colon Resections: Does Surgeon Specialization Influence Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Relationships between high-volume surgeons and improved postoperative outcomes have been well documented. Colorectal procedures are often performed by general surgeons, particularly in emergent settings, and may form a large component of their practice. The influence of subspecialized training on outcomes after emergent colon surgery, however, is not well described.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether subspecialty training in colorectal surgery is associated with differences in postoperative outcomes after emergency colectomy.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

Three tertiary care hospitals participating in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project were included.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing emergent colon resections were identified at each institution and stratified by involvement of either a colorectal surgeon or a general or acute care surgeon.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Propensity score matching was used to isolate the effect of surgeon specialty on the primary outcomes, including postoperative morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and the need for unplanned major reoperation, in comparable cohorts of patients.

RESULTS

A total of 889 cases were identified, including 592 by colorectal and 297 by general/acute care surgeons. After propensity score matching, cases performed by colorectal surgeons were associated with significantly lower rates of 30-day mortality (6.7% vs 16.4%; p = 0.001), postoperative morbidity (45.0% vs 56.7%; p = 0.009), and unplanned major reoperation (9.7% vs 16.4%; p = 0.04). In addition, length of stay was ≈4.4 days longer among patients undergoing surgery by general/acute care surgeons (p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective design, with potential selection bias attributed to referral patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

After controlling for underlying disease states and illness severity, emergent colon resections performed by colorectal surgeons were associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality when compared with noncolorectal surgeons. These findings may have implications for referral patterns for institutions. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A767.

Minimally Invasive Treatment of Sporadic Burkitt's Lymphoma Causing Ileocaecal Invagination

Introduction

Primary NHL (non-Hodgkin lymphoma) of the colon represents only 0.2% to 1.2% of all colonic malignancies. Burkitt's lymphoma (BL) is usually a disease reported in children and young people, most of them associated with EBV or HIV infection. We describe a rare case of intestinal obstruction due to sporadic Burkitt's lymphoma causing ileocaecal invagination explaining our experience Methods. A 31-year-old man presented with diffuse colic pain and weight loss. Clinical examination revealed an abdominal distension with pain in the right iliac fossa. Colonoscopy documented a caecal large lesion with ulcerated mucosa. Computed tomography (CT) have shown a 60 × 50 mm right colic parietal lesion with signs of ileocolic intussusception.

Results

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy was performed. Postoperative period was uneventful. CD20+ high-grade B-cell Burkitt's lymphoma was confirmed by immunohistochemistry (CD20+, CD79+, and CD10+) and FISH test (t (8;14) (q24; q32). The patient was subsequently treated with adjuvant combination chemotherapy (Hyper-CVAD) and is alive and disease-free at 8 months follow-up.

Discussion

Adult sporadic Burkitt's lymphoma (BL) causing intestinal obstruction due to ileocaecal intussusception is an extremely rare occurrence and a diagnostic dilemma. Despite the surgical approach is selected based on patient's conditions and surgeon's expertise, minimally invasive method could be preferred.

The Growing Utilization of Laparoscopy in Emergent Colonic Disease

Emergent colonic disease has traditionally been managed with open procedures. Evaluation of recent trends suggests a shift toward minimally invasive techniques in this disease setting. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) targeted colectomy database from 2012 to 2014 was used to examine clinical data from patients who emergently underwent open colectomy (OC) and laparoscopic colectomy (LC). Multivariate regression was utilized to analyze preoperative characteristics and determine risk-adjusted outcomes with intent-to-treat and as-treated approach. Of 10,018 patients with emergent colonic operation, 90 per cent (9023) underwent OC whereas 10 per cent (995) underwent LC. Laparoscopic utilization increased annually, with LC composing 10.9 per cent of emergent colonic operations in 2014 compared with 9.3 per cent in 2012. Compared with LC, patients treated with OC had higher rates of overall morbidity (odds ratio 2.01, 95% confidence interval 1.74–2.34, P < 0.01) and 30-day mortality (odds ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval 1.30–2.46, P < 0.01). Subset analysis of emergent patients without preoperative septic shock revealed consistent benefits with laparoscopy in overall morbidity, 30-day mortality, ileus, and surgical site infection. In select patients with hemodynamic stability, emergent LC appears to be a safe and beneficial operation. This study reflects the growing preference and utilization of minimally invasive techniques in emergent colonic operations.

Comparative Analysis of Laparoscopic and Open Approaches in Emergency Abdominal Surgery

The objective of this study was to evaluate usage and outcomes of emergency laparoscopic versus open surgery at a single tertiary academic center. Over a three-year period 165 patients were identified retrospectively using National Surgical Quality Improvement Program results. Appendectomies and cholecystectomies were excluded. Open and laparoscopic approaches were compared regarding preoperative and operative characteristics, the development of postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, and length of hospital stay. Indications for operation were similar between groups. Patients who underwent open surgery had more severe comorbidities and higher ASA class. Laparoscopy was associated with reduced complication rates, operative time, length of stay, and discharges to skilled nursing facilities on univariate analysis. In a multivariate model, surgical approach was not associated with the development of complications. Older age, dependent status, and dyspnea were predictors of conversion from attempted laparoscopic to open approaches.

Economic Impact of Laparoscopic Conversion to Open in Left Colon Resections

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Studies have shown economic and clinical advantages of laparoscopic left-colon resections. Laparoscopic conversion to open is an important surgical outcome. We estimated conversion incidence, identified risk factors, and measured the clinical and economic impact.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we used the Premier Perspective database to analyze left-sided colectomies from 2009 to 2014. Operating room time (ORT), length of stay (LOS), total hospital cost (2014 U.S. dollars); along with incidence of in-hospital clinical outcomes (anastomotic leak surrogate [Leak], transfusion, and mortality) were evaluated. Multivariable models accounting for hospital clustering were used to identify conversion risk factors and analyze the effect of conversion on economic and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 41,417 patients: 8,468 left hemicolectomy and 32,949 sigmoidectomy were identified. Lap-Conversion incidence was 13.3% (95% CI, 12.9-13.7). Adjusted mean LOS (±SE) days was significantly lower for the Lap-Successful group (4.9 compared with Lap-Conversion 6.8 and Open-Planned 7.0), but Lap-Conversion and Open-Planned had similar LOS. Adjusted mean cost was higher for Lap-Conversion $20,165 compared to Open-Planned $18,797; but this difference was smaller than the cost savings for Lap-Successful $16,206 ± $219. Open-Planned had lower odds of Leak compared to Lap-Conversion. Open-Planned and Lap-Conversion had similar odds of transfusion and mortality. Conversion risk factors included inflammatory bowel disease and left-hemicolectomy. Colorectal specialists were associated with 38% decreased odds of conversion.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful laparoscopic surgery was the most cost effective, with decreased LOS and odds of blood transfusion, leak surrogate, and mortality. Conversion was the most expensive and had increased odds of leak surrogate, but similar LOS compared to Open-Planned. The beneficial effect size of successful laparoscopic surgery was larger than the negative effect of conversion compared to Open-Planned.

Laparoscopy may decrease morbidity and length of stay after elective colon cancer resection, especially in frail patients: results from an observational real-life study

BACKGROUND

Advantages of laparoscopic approach in colon cancer surgery have been previously demonstrated in controlled, randomized trials and in retrospective analysis of large administrative databases. Nevertheless, evidence of these advantages in prospective, observational studies from real-life settings is scarce.

METHODS

This is a prospective, observational study, including a consecutive series of patients that underwent elective colonic resection for cancer in 52 Spanish hospitals. Pre-/intraoperative data, related to patient, tumor, surgical procedure, and hospital, were recorded as well as 60-day post-operative outcomes, including wound infection, complications, anastomotic leak, length of stay, and mortality. A univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to determine the influence of laparoscopy on short-term post-operative outcome. A sub-analysis of the effect of laparoscopy according to patients' pre-operative risk (ASA Score I-II vs. III-IV) was also performed.

RESULTS

2968 patients were included: 44.2% were initially operated by laparoscopy, with a 13.9% conversion rate to laparotomy. At univariate analysis, laparoscopy was associated with a decreased mortality (p = 0.015), morbidity (p < 0.0001), wound infection (p < 0.0001), and post-operative length of stay (p < 0.0001). At multivariate analysis, laparoscopy resulted as an independent protective factor for morbidity (OR 0.7; p = 0.004), wound infection (OR 0.6; p < 0.0001), and length of post-operative stay (Effect-2 days; p < 0.0001), compared to open approach. These advantages were more relevant in high-risk patients (ASA III-IV), even if the majority of them were operated by open approach (67.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-life setting, laparoscopy decreases wound infection rate, post-operative complications, and length of stay, especially in ASA III-IV patients.

A new perspective on the value of minimally invasive colorectal surgery-payer, provider, and patient benefits

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) are proven, but overall financial benefits are not fully explored. Our goal was to evaluate the financial benefits of MIS from the payer's perspective to demonstrate the value of minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A Truven MarketScan^® claim-based analysis identified all 2013 elective, inpatient colectomies. Cases were stratified into open or MIS approaches based on ICD-9 procedure codes; then costs were assessed using a similar distribution across diagnosis related groups (DRGs). Care episodes were compared for average allowed costs, complication, and readmission rates after adjusting costs for demographics, comorbidities, and geographic region.

RESULTS

A total of 4615 colectomies were included-2054 (44.5 %) open and 2561 (55.5 %) MIS. Total allowed episode costs were significantly lower MIS than open ($37,540 vs. $45,284, p < 0.001). During the inpatient stay, open cases had significantly greater ICU utilization (3.9 % open vs. 2.0 % MIS, p < 0.001), higher overall complications (52.8 % open vs. 32.3 % MIS, p < 0.001), higher colorectal-specific complications (32.5 % open vs. 17.9 % MIS, p < 0.001), longer LOS (6.39 open vs. 4.44 days MIS, p < 0.001), and higher index admission costs ($39,585 open vs. $33,183 MIS, p < 0.001). Post-discharge, open cases had significantly higher readmission rates/100 cases (11.54 vs. 8.28; p = 0.0013), higher average readmission costs ($3055 vs. $2,514; p = 0.1858), and greater 30-day healthcare costs than MIS ($5699 vs. $4357; p = 0.0033). The net episode cost of care was $7744/patient greater for an open colectomy, even with similar DRG distribution.

CONCLUSIONS

In a commercially insured population, the risk-adjusted allowed costs for MIS colectomy episodes were significantly lower than open. The overall cost difference between MIS and open was almost $8000 per patient. This highlights an opportunity for health plans and employers to realize financial benefits by shifting from open to MIS for colectomy. With increasing bundled payment arrangements and accountable care sharing programs, the cost impact of shifting from open to MIS introduces an opportunity for cost savings.