Minimally invasive surgery for diverticulitis

Open Versus Minimally Invasive Emergent Colectomy for Diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the acute management of diverticulitis remains controversial. Using a national cohort, we examined the relationship between operative approaches with acute clinical and financial outcomes.

METHODS

Adults undergoing emergent colectomy for diverticulitis were tabulated from the 2015-2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Regression models were developed to analyze the association between open and MIS approaches with major adverse events (MAE), as well as secondary endpoints. A subgroup analysis was conducted to compare outcomes between open and MIS requiring conversion to open (CTO).

RESULTS

Of 9194 patients, 1580 (17.3%) underwent MIS colectomy. The proportion of MIS resection increased from 15.1% in 2015 to 19.1% in 2020 (nptrend<.001). Compared to Open, MIS patients were younger, equally likely to be female, had a lower proportion of patients with ASA class ≥3, and a higher BMI. Preoperatively, MIS patients were less frequently diagnosed with sepsis. Following adjustment with open as reference, MIS approach had reduced odds of MAE (AOR .56), ostomy creation (AOR .12), shorter postoperative length of stay (LOS; β -1.63), and a lower likelihood of nonhome discharge (AOR .45, all P < .001). Additionally, CTO was linked to decreased likelihood of MAE (AOR .78, P = .01), ostomy creation (AOR .02, P < .001), comparable LOS (β -.46, P = .41), and reduced odds of nonhome discharge (AOR .58, P < .001), relative to open.

DISCUSSION

Compared to planned open colectomy, MIS resection was associated with improved clinical and financial outcomes, even in cases of CTO. Our findings suggest that whenever possible, MIS should be attempted first in emergent colectomy for diverticulitis. Nevertheless, future prospective studies are likely needed to further elucidate specific patient and clinical factors.

Robotic colorectal surgery in the emergent diverticulitis setting: is it safe? A review of large national database

BACKGROUND

As robotic colorectal surgery continues to advance in conjunction with improved recovery protocols, we began implementing robotic surgery (RS) as an option for emergent diverticulitis surgery. Our hospital system utilizes the Da Vinci Xi system, and staff are required to undergo training, making emergent colorectal surgery a feasible option. However, it is essential to determine the safety with reproducibility of our experiences.

METHODS

A de-identified retrospective review was performed of Intuitive's national database which obtained data from 262 facilities from January 2018 through December 2021. This identified over 22,000 emergent colorectal surgeries. Of those, over 2500 were performed for diverticulitis in which 126 were RS, 446 laparoscopic surgery (LS), and 1952 open surgery (OS). Clinical outcome metrics including conversion rates, anastomotic leaks, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, length of stay, mortality, and readmissions were obtained. The cohort was defined by patients who were seen in the emergency department (ED) with diverticulitis and proceeded to have a sigmoid colectomy within 24 h of ED arrival.

RESULTS

RS was associated with increased operating time (RS 262, LS 207, OS 182 min), but data has shown many benefits of emergent RS compared to OS. We identified significant decreases in ICU admission rates (OS 19.0%, RS 9.5%, p = 0.01) and anastomotic leak rates (OS 4.4%, RS 0.8%, p = 0.04), with borderline improvement in overall length of stay (OS 9.9, RS 8.9 days, p = 0.05). When compared with LS, RS showed many comparable results. However, RS witnessed a statistically significant improvement in anastomotic leak rates (LS 4.5%, RS 0.8%, p = 0.04). Importantly, there was a striking difference in conversion rates to OS. LS converted over 28.7% of cases to OS, whereas RS only converted 7.9%, p = 0.000005.

CONCLUSION

Given these findings, RS is another MIS tool that could be a safe and feasible option for the acute management of emergent diverticulitis.

Safety of robotic surgical management of non-elective colectomies for diverticulitis compared to laparoscopic surgery

Non-elective minimally invasive surgery (MIS) remains controversial, with minimal focus on robotics. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes for non-elective robotic colectomies for diverticulitis. All colectomies for diverticulitis in ACS-NSQIP between 2012 and 2019 were identified by CPT and diagnosis codes. Open and elective cases were excluded. Patients with disseminated cancer, ascites, and ventilator-dependence were excluded. Procedures were grouped by approach (laparoscopic and robotic). Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Covariates with p < .1 were entered into multivariable logistic regression models for 30 day mortality, postoperative septic shock and reoperation. 6880 colectomies were evaluated (Laparoscopic = 6583, Robotic = 297). The laparoscopic group included more preoperative sepsis (31.6% vs. 10.8%), emergency cases (32.3% vs. 6.7%), and grade 3/4 wound classifications (53.3% vs. 42.8%). There was no difference in mortality, anastomotic leak, SSI, reoperation, readmission, or length of stay. The laparoscopic group had more postoperative sepsis (p = 0.001) and the robotic group showed increased bleeding (p = 0.011). In a multivariate regression model, increased age (OR = 1.083, p < 0.001), COPD (OR = 2.667, p = 0.007), dependent functional status (OR = 2.657, p = 0.021), dialysis (OR = 4.074, p = 0.016), preoperative transfusions (OR = 3.182, p = 0.019), emergency status (OR = 2.241, p = 0.010), higher ASA classification (OR = 3.170, p = 0.035), abnormal WBC (OR = 1.883, p = 0.046) were independent predictors for mortality. When controlling for confounders, robotic approach was not statistically significantly associated with septic shock or reoperation. When controlling for confounders, robotic approach was not a predictor for mortality, reoperation or septic shock. Robotic surgery is a feasible option for the acute management of diverticulitis.

Racial Disparity in the Surgical Management of Diverticular Disease

INTRODUCTION

Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has clearly been associated with improved colorectal surgery outcomes, not all populations benefit from this approach. Using a national database, we analyzed both, the trend in the utilization of MIS for diverticulitis and differences in utilization by race.

METHODS

Colon-targeted participant user files (PUFs) from 2012 to 18 were linked to respective PUFs in National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. Patients undergoing colectomy for acute diverticulitis or chronic diverticular disease were included. Surgical approach was stratified by race and year. To adjust for confounding and estimate the association of covariates with approach, data were fit using multivariable binary logistic regression main effects model. Using a joint effects model, we evaluated whether the odds of a particular approach over time was differentially affected by race.

RESULTS

Of the 46 713 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 83% were white, with 7% black and 10% other. Over the study period, there was a decrease in the rate of open colectomy of about 5% P < .001, and increase in the rate of utilization of laparoscopic and robotic approaches (RC) P < .0001. After adjusting for confounders, black race was associated with open surgery P < .0001.

CONCLUSION

There is disparity in the utilization of MIS for diverticulitis. Further research into the reasons for this disparity is critical to ensure known benefits of MIC are realized across all races.

A multicentre comparative study between laparoscopic and open surgery for intussusception in adults

AIM

Intussusception in adults is rare and requires surgery in most cases. While abdominal laparoscopic surgery (LS) is becoming more popular, there are few reports on the outcomes of adult intussusception treated with LS. This study compared the feasibility of LS vs open surgery (OS) for adult intussusception.

METHOD

We reviewed retrospectively the medical records of adult patients with intussusception from three tertiary hospitals between 2000 and 2016. The patients were divided into LS and OS groups, and their surgical outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Surgery was indicated in 71 patients with intussusception (41 LS and 30 OS). The median age of the patients was 49.0 and 51.5 years in the LS and OS groups, respectively (P = 0.930). Overall, nine (12.7%) patients had a negative laparotomy or laparoscopy with spontaneous reduction of the intussusception. Conversion to OS from LS was necessary in one patient (2.4%). The operative time and intra-operative and postoperative complication rates were not significantly different. However, there were more serious complications such as bowel perforation and major vessel injury in the LS group. The patients in the LS group had a shorter time to first food intake and hospital stay vs patients in the OS group (4.0 vs 6.0 days, P < 0.001, and 7.0 vs 10.5 days, P < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

LS may be feasible for adult intussusception; there may be more severe intra-operative complications than in OS.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Reduction in operative trauma along with an improvement in endoscopic access has undoubtedly occupied surgical minds for at least the past 3 decades. It is not at all surprising that minimally invasive colon surgery has come a long way since the first laparoscopic appendectomy by Semm in 1981. It is common knowledge that the recent developments in video and robotic technologies have significantly furthered advancements in laparoscopic and minimally invasive surgery. This has led to the overall acceptance of the treatment of benign colorectal pathology via the endoscopic route. Malignant disease, however, is still primarily treated by conventional approaches.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This review article is based on a literature search pertaining to advances in minimally invasive colorectal surgery for the treatment of malignant pathology, as well as on personal experience in the field over the same period of time. Our search was limited to level I and II clinical papers only, according to the evidence-based medicine guidelines. We attempted to present our unbiased view on the subject relying only on the evidence available.

CONCLUSION

Focusing on advances in colorectal minimally invasive surgery, it has to be stated that there are still a number of unanswered questions regarding the surgical management of malignant diseases with this approach. These questions do not only relate to the area of boundaries set for the use of minimally invasive techniques in this field but also to the exact modality best suited to the treatment of every particular case whilst maintaining state-of-the-art oncological principles.