Is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Lesions Performed in the Endoscopy Suite Safe and Cost Saving?

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the outcomes and the cost differences of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures in the endoscopy suite (ES) versus the operating room (OR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The procedures in the OR were compared with procedures performed in the ES for demographics, lesion characteristics, procedure outcome, and procedure charges. The study included 163 procedures in the ES and 73 in the OR. RESULTS: Both were similar in age, sex, body mass index, and intraprocedural and postoperative 30-day (late) complications. ES cases had significantly greater polyp size, were more commonly right-sided polyps, and had shorter hospital stays, with similar en bloc and margin-negative resection rates. The overall cost ratio of ESD procedures in ES to OR was 0.47 ( P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal ESD procedures performed in the ES have similar efficacy and safety as those in the OR. Procedures performed in the ES were associated with a shorter length of stay and significant periprocedural cost savings.

Cost-Effectiveness of Aspirin for Extended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Major Surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism extended prophylaxis after inflammatory bowel disease surgery remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if adopting an aspirin-based prophylaxis strategy may address current cost-effectiveness limitations. METHODS: A decision analysis model was used to compare costs and outcomes of a reference case patient undergoing inflammatory bowel disease-associated colorectal surgery considered for post-discharge thromboembolism prophylaxis. Low-dose aspirin was compared to an enoxaparin regimen as well as no prophylaxis. Source estimates were obtained from aggregated existing literature. Secondary analysis included out-of-pocket costs. A 10,000-simulation Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis accounted for uncertainty in model estimates. RESULTS: An enoxaparin-based regimen compared to aspirin demonstrated an unfavorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $908,268 per quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis supported this finding in > 75% of simulated cases; scenarios favoring enoxaparin included those with > 4% post-discharge event rates. Aspirin versus no prophylaxis demonstrated a favorable ratio of $106,601 per quality-adjusted life year. Findings were vulnerable to a post-discharge thromboembolism rate < 1%, aspirin-associated bleeding rate > 1%, median hospital costs of bleeding > 3 × , and decreased efficacy of aspirin (RR > 0.75). The average out-of-pocket cost of choosing an aspirin ePpx strategy increased by $54 per patient versus $708 per patient with enoxaparin. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose aspirin extended prophylaxis following inflammatory bowel disease surgery has a favorable cost-safety profile and may be an attractive alternative approach.

Outcomes and Cost Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Case-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopy for abdominoperineal resection has been well defined, the literature lacks comparative studies on robotic abdominoperineal resection. Because robotic abdominoperineal resections typically do not require splenic mobilization or an anastomosis for reconstruction, the mean console time is expected to be shorter than low anterior resection. We hypothesized that robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection would provide similar oncologic and financial outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to compare the perioperative, oncologic, and economic outcomes of the robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection. DESIGN: This was a retrospective, case-matched patient cohort. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: This study included all patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic abdominoperineal resections between January 2008 and April 2017; they were case-matched in a 1:1 ratio based on age ±5 years, BMI ±3 kg/m 2 , and sex criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative, oncologic, and economic (including survival) outcomes were compared. Because of institutional policy, actual cost values are presented as the lowest direct cost value as "100%," and other values are presented as proportional to the index value. RESULTS: We examined 68 patients (34 in each group). Both groups had similar preoperative characteristics, including preoperative chemoradiation rates. Operative time (319 vs 309 min), length of stay (7.2 vs 7.4 d), postoperative complications (38.2% vs 41.2%), conversion to open (5 vs 4), complete mesorectal excision (76.4% vs 79.4%), radial margin involvement (2.9% vs 8.9%), and direct hospital cost parameters (mean difference 26%, median difference 43%) were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection groups, respectively (all p > 0.05). Local recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates (85.3% vs 76.5%) were also similar after 22 months of follow-up between the groups. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations of this study are its retrospective nature and the variety in concomitant procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic abdominoperineal resections provided in carefully matched patients with rectal cancer showed similar perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes compared to laparoscopic abdominoperineal resections. Our study was not powered to detect a significant increase in cost with robotic abdominoperineal resections. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B920 . RESULTADOS Y ANLISIS DE COSTO DE LA RESECCIN ABDOMINOPERINEAL LAPAROSCPICA VS LA ROBTICA EN CASOS DE CNCER DE RECTO ESTUDIO DE CASOS EMPAREJADOS: ANTECEDENTES:Si bien la resección abdominoperineal laparoscópica está bien definida, la literatura carece de estudios comparativos sobre la resección abdominoperineal robótica. Dado que las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas generalmente no requieren movilización esplénica o una anastomosis en casos de reconstrucción, se supone que el tiempo medio en la consola sea más corto que durante una resección anterior baja. Hipotéticamente las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas y laparoscópicas nos proporcionarían resultados oncológicos y económicos similares.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados perioperatorios, oncológicos y económicos de la resección abdominoperineal robótica y laparoscópica.DISEÑO:Esta fue una cohorte de pacientes retrospectiva, emparejada por casos.AJUSTE:Estudio realizado en un centro de referencia terciario.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resecciones abdominoperineales LAParoscópicas o ROBóticas entre Enero de 2008 y Abril de 2017 fueron identificados y emparejados según la edad ±5, el IMC ±3 y los criterios de sexo en una proporción de 1:1.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se compararon los resultados perioperatorios, oncológicos y económicos (incluida la sobrevida). Debido a la política institucional, los valores de costos reales se presentan como el valor de costo directo más bajo al 100% y los otros valores se presentan como proporcionales al valor índice.RESULTADOS:Se analizaron 68 pacientes (LAP-34 y ROB-34). Ambos grupos tenían características preoperatorias similares, incluidas las tasas de radio-quimioterapia pre-operatoria. Los tiempos operatorios fueron de 319 y 309 minutos, la estadía hospitalaria de 7 días en los dos grupos, las complicaciones post-operatorias fueron de 38,2% LAP frente a 41,2% ROB, la tasa de conversion fué de 5 a 4, la excisión total del mesorrecto de 76,4% frente a 79,4%, la resección radial con afectación de los márgenes de 2,9% frente a 8,9% y los parámetros de costes hospitalarios directos (diferencia de medias 26%, diferencia de medianas 43%) fueron comparables entre los grupos, de resección abdominoperineal robótica y laparoscópica, respectivamente (todos p > 0,05). Las tasas de recurrencia local, sobrevida libre de enfermedad y sobrevida general (85,3% frente a 76,5%) también fueron similares después de 22 meses de seguimiento entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:La naturaleza retrospectiva y la variedad de procedimientos concomitantes fueron las principales limitaciones de este estudio.CONCLUSIONES:Las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas proporcionaron resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a corto plazo similares en pacientes con cáncer de recto cuidadosamente emparejados en comparación con las resecciones abdominoperineales laparoscópicas. Nuestro estudio no fue diseñado para detectar un aumento significativo en el costo relacionado con la resección abdominoperineal robótica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B920 . (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Cost-conscious robotic restorative proctectomy has similar economic and oncologic outcomes to open restorative proctectomy: Results of a long-term follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we hypothesised that the direct hospital costs of robotic restorative proctectomy (RP) would be similar to those of open RP when a cost-conscious approach was employed in rectal cancer patients. METHODS: We included consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RP between 12/2011 and 10/2014. A cost-conscious approach was employed in robotic surgery. We compared demographics, long-term oncologic outcomes, and direct hospital costs between the open and robotic groups. RESULTS: There were 32 robotic and 68 open RP procedures performed. Compared to open RP, the robotic RP group had a longer operative time but less estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusions, overall short-term morbidity, decreased length of stay. After the initial five robotic cases, overall hospital costs were comparable between the groups (1 ± 0.5 vs. 1 ± 0.4, open and robotic RP, respectively, p = 0.90). CONCLUSION: Increasing surgeon experience and a cost-conscious approach may improve the value of care of robotic RP in patients with rectal cancer.

Intraoperative Colonoscopy During Colorectal Surgery Does Not Increase Postoperative Complications: An Assessment From the ACS-NSQIP Procedure-targeted Cohort.

Intraoperative colonoscopy (IOC) is an adjunct in colorectal surgery to detect the location of the lesions and assessing anastomotic integrity. The authors aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility and postoperative morbidity of IOC in left-sided colectomy patients for colorectal cancer. Patients undergoing elective left-sided colectomy without any proximal diversion for colorectal cancer between 2013 and 2016 were reviewed from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted database. Demographics, comorbidities, short-term outcomes, and postoperative morbidity of patients were evaluated. A total of 8811 patients were identified and IOC was performed for 1143 (12.97%) patients. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the IOC and non-IOC groups. Patients with IOC had shorter total hospital length of stay. The use of IOC does not adversely affect short-term outcomes after colorectal resections. Surgeons may utilize IOC liberally for left-sided colorectal resections.

Enhanced Recovery Pathway Benefits Patients Undergoing Nonelective Colorectal Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to determine if an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP) can successfully be applied in nonelective colorectal surgery. BACKGROUND: ERPs have been shown to reduce hospital length of stay (LOS), complications, and costs after elective colorectal surgery. Yet, little data exist regarding the benefits of ERPs in patients undergoing nonelective colorectal surgery. We hypothesized that ERP implementation in a nonelective colorectal surgery population is associated with decreased postoperative LOS. METHODS: A prospectively-maintained database was used to identify consecutive patients undergoing colorectal surgery after emergency room (ER) or hospital transfer admissions over a period from 2 years before until 1 year after implementation of a comprehensive ERP. The primary endpoint was LOS. Secondary endpoints included total LOS [TLOS = postoperative LOS + LOS of readmission(s)], readmission rates, complication rates, 30-day mortality, and hospital costs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the relationship between ERP implementation and LOS. RESULTS: We identified 269 pre-ERP and 135 ERP patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Admit source (ER 43.4% vs transfers 56.7%), Charlson comorbidity index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, diagnosis (inflammatory bowel disease 45.8%, malignancy 19.6%, benign intestinal obstructions 10.4%, diverticulitis 9.4%, others 10.4%), and blood loss were comparable (P > 0.05) between the cohorts. Pre-ERP patients had a higher number of previous abdominal surgeries, whereas post-ERP patients had more laparoscopy and more compliance with ERP elements. ERP patients had a shorter postoperative LOS [6 (4, 10) vs 7 (5, 12) days; P = 0.0007]. Hospital costs were 13.4% lower (P = 0.004). Postoperative 30-day morbidity, mortality, and readmissions were comparable, although reoperation rate was higher in the ERP group. On multivariate analysis, ERP implementation and laparoscopy were the only modifiable variables independently associated with shorter LOS, whereas longer operative times and higher ASA classification were associated with longer LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing nonelective colorectal surgery after ER or hospital transfer admission benefit from the use of an ERP, demonstrating decreased LOS and costs without an increase in complications.

Extended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Elective Surgery for IBD Patients: Nomogram-Based Risk Assessment and Prediction from Nationwide Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Identification of risk factors for postoperative venous thromboembolism is an important step to reduce the morbidity associated with this potentially preventable complication after elective surgery for patients with IBD. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the risk factors for 30-day venous thromboembolism after abdominal surgery for patients with venous thromboembolism, identify potential indications for extended thromboprophylaxis, and develop a nomogram for prediction of risk. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study from a prospectively collected database. SETTING: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant User File from 2005 to 2016 was used for data analysis. PATIENTS: All patients with IBD undergoing elective abdominopelvic bowel surgery were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the incidence of in-hospital and postdischarge venous thromboembolism within 30 days of the index abdominopelvic surgery. RESULTS: A total of 24,182 patients met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-day total and postdischarge rates of venous thromboembolism were 2.5% (n = 614) and 1% (n =252). Forty-one percent (252/614) of venous thromboembolism events occurred after hospital discharge. Univariate analysis assessed 37 variables for association with study outcomes. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, older age, steroid use, bleeding disorders, open surgery, hypertension, longer operative time, and preoperative hospitalization were associated with venous thromboembolism before discharge and also postoperative transfusion, steroid use, pelvic and enterocutaneous fistula surgery, and longer operative time were associated with venous thromboembolism after discharge. A nomogram was constructed for each outcome, translating multivariate model parameter estimates into a visual scoring system where the estimated probability of venous thromboembolism can be calculated. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective nature and the limitations inherent to a database. CONCLUSION: Given the higher risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with IBD after elective abdominopelvic surgery compared with other indications, an accurate prediction of venous thromboembolism before and after discharge using the proposed nomogram can facilitate decision making for individualized extended thromboprophylaxis in the preoperative setting as a screening tool. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A711.

Comparisons of the surgical outcomes and medical costs between transferred and directly admitted patients diagnosed with intestinal obstruction in an American tertiary referral center.

PURPOSE: Intestinal obstruction is a leading cause of patient mortality and the most common reason for emergent operation in colorectal surgery. The influence of inter-hospital transfer on patients' outcomes varies greatly in different diseases. We aimed to compare the surgical outcomes and medical costs between transferred and directly admitted patients diagnosed with intestinal obstruction in an American tertiary referral center. METHODS: All intestinal obstruction patients operated in Cleveland Clinic from Jan 2012 to Dec 2016 were collected from a prospectively maintained database. Preoperative characteristics; surgical outcomes, including intraoperative complication, postoperative complication, readmission, reoperation, and postoperative 30-day mortality; and medical cost were collected. All parameters were compared between two groups before and after propensity score match. Multivariate logistic analysis was used to explore risk factors of surgical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 576 patients were included, with 75 in the transferred group and 501 in the directly admitted group. Before match, the transferred patients had longer waiting interval from admission to surgery (p < 0.001), more contaminated or infected wounds (p = 0.02), different surgical procedures (p = 0.02), and similar surgical outcomes and total medical cost (all p > 0.05), compared with the directly admitted group. Multivariate analysis showed that inter-hospital transfer was not an independent predictor of any surgical outcome. After matching to balance the preoperative characteristics between two groups, no significant differences were identified in all surgical outcomes and total medical cost between two groups (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with directly admitted patients, transferred intestinal obstruction patients are associated with similar surgical outcomes and similar medical costs.

Management of the colorectal polyp referred for resection: A case-matched comparison of advanced endoscopic surgery and laparoscopic colectomy.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the gold standard for colorectal screening and surveillance. Advanced endoscopic polypectomy techniques such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been introduced to remove large colorectal polyps. Our aim was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent ESD with those of who underwent laparoscopic colectomy for benign colorectal polyps. METHODS: Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of benign colorectal polyp who underwent ESD or colectomy between 2011 and 2016 were case matched for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, polyp size, and location. Outcomes and cost data were analyzed. Polyps proximal to the splenic flexure were grouped as right-sided polyps, and polyps distal to the splenic flexure were grouped as left-sided polyps. RESULTS: We identified 144 patients in the laparoscopic resection group and 111 patients in the ESD group; 48 patients met the matching criteria. Of the 48 patients in the ESD group, 5 required operative resection. Mean duration of stay in laparoscopic resection group and the ESD group was 5.2 ± 2.4 days vs 1.5 ± 1.4 (P < .001). Mean operative time was no different (136 ± 45 vs 133 ± 72.7 minutes, respectively). Six patients had follow-up colonoscopy within a year in the laparoscopic resection group versus 22 patients in the ESD group. The laparoscopic group had 21% complication rate versus 15% for the ESD group (P > .05). ESD had a 43% cost-reduction advantage over laparoscopic colectomy, with a 44% and 39% cost advantage for right- and left-sided lesions, respectively. CONCLUSION: ESD is more cost effective than conventional segmental resection. With an experienced endoscopist, ESD can be offered as a colon-preserving procedure.

An Effective Bundled Approach Reduces Surgical Site Infections in a High-Outlier Colorectal Unit.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections are the most common hospital-acquired infection after colorectal surgery, increasing morbidity, mortality, and hospital costs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of preventive measures on colorectal surgical site infection rates in a high-volume institution that performs inherent high-risk procedures. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a high-volume, specialized colorectal surgery department. PATIENTS: The Prospective Surgical Site Infection Prevention Bundle Project included 14 preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative measures to reduce surgical site infection occurrence after colorectal surgery. Surgical site infections within 30 days of the index operation were examined for patients during the 1-year period after the surgical site infection prevention bundle was implemented. The data collection and outcomes for this period were compared with the year immediately before the implementation of bundle elements. All of the patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery by a total of 17 surgeons were included. The following procedures were excluded from the analysis to obtain a homogeneous patient population: ileostomy closure and anorectal and enterocutaneous fistula repair. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Surgical site infection occurring within 30 days of the index operation was measured. Surgical site infection-related outcomes after implementation of the bundle (bundle February 2014 to February 2015) were compared with same period a year before the implementation of bundle elements (prebundle February 2013 to February 2014). RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2015, 2250 abdominal colorectal surgical procedures were performed, including 986 (43.8%) during the prebundle period and 1264 (56.2%) after the bundle project. Patient characteristics and comorbidities were similar in both periods. Compliance with preventive measures ranged between 75% and 99% during the bundle period. The overall surgical site infection rate decreased from 11.8% prebundle to 6.6% at the bundle period (P < 0.001). Although a decrease for all types of surgical site infections was observed after the bundle implementation, a significant reduction was achieved in the organ-space subgroup (5.5%-1.7%; P < 0.001). LIMITATION: We were unable to predict the specific contributions the constituent bundle interventions made to the surgical site infection reduction. CONCLUSIONS: The prospective Surgical Site Infection Prevention Bundle Project resulted in a substantial decline in surgical site infection rates in our department. Collaborative and enduring efforts among multiple providers are critical to achieve a sustained reduction See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A438.

Nomogram-Derived Prediction of Postoperative Ileus after Colectomy: An Assessment from Nationwide Procedure-Targeted Cohort.

Postoperative ileus (POI) is a clinical burden to health-care system. This study aims to evaluate the incidence and predictors of POI in patients undergoing colectomy and create a nomogram by using recently released procedure-targeted nationwide database. Patients who underwent elective colectomy in 2012 and 2013 were identified from American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program using the new procedure-targeted database. Demographics, comorbidities, and 30-day postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Variables in the final stepwise multiple logistic regression model for each outcome were selected in a stepwise fashion using Akaike's information criterion. A nomogram was created to aid in the calculation of POI risk for individual patients. A total of 29,201 patients met the inclusion criteria; 3834 (13.1%) developed POI with a male predominance (55.9%). Patients who developed ileus had longer length of hospital stay (11 vs 5 days; P < 0.001) and operative time (200 vs 174 minutes; P < 0.001). In the stepwise logistic regression model, the following variables were found to be independent risk factors for POI: older age (P < 0.001), male gender (P < 0.001), American Society of Anesthesiologists class III/IV (P < 0.001), open approach (P < 0.001), preoperative septic conditions (P < 0.001), omission of oral antibiotic before surgery (P < 0.001), right colectomy or total colectomy vs other procedures (P < 0.001), smoking (P = 0.001), decreased preoperative serum albumin level (P < 0.001), and prolonged operating time (P < 0.001). All postoperative complications were more frequently occurred in patients with POI. The nomogram accurately predicted POI with a concordant index for this model of 0.69. The use of minimal invasive techniques, control of preoperative septic conditions, oral antibiotic bowel preparation and shorter operative time are associated with a decreased rate of POI. External validation is essential for the confirmation and further evaluation of our logistic regression model and nomogram.

Predictors of Anastomotic Leak in Elderly Patients After Colectomy: Nomogram-Based Assessment From the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Program Procedure-Targeted Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients undergoing colorectal surgery have increasingly become under scrutiny by accounting for the largest fraction of geriatric postoperative deaths and a significant proportion of all postoperative complications, including anastomotic leak. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine predictors of anastomotic leak in elderly patients undergoing colectomy by creating a novel nomogram for simplistic prediction of anastomotic leak risk in a given patient. DESIGN: This study was a retrospective review. SETTINGS: The database review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was conducted at a single institution. PATIENTS: Patients aged ≥65 years who underwent elective segmental colectomy with an anastomosis at different levels (abdominal or low pelvic) in 2012-2013 were identified from the multi-institutional procedure-targeted database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We constructed a stepwise multiple logistic regression model for anastomotic leak as an outcome; predictors were selected in a stepwise fashion using the Akaike information criterion. The validity of the nomogram was externally tested on elderly patients (≥65 years of age) from the 2014 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program colectomy-targeted database. RESULTS: A total of 10,392 patients were analyzed, and anastomotic leak occurred in 332 (3.2%). Of the patients who developed anastomotic leak, 192 (57.8%) were men (p < 0.001). Based on unadjusted analysis, factors associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leak were ASA score III and IV (p < 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p = 0.004), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.003), smoking history (p = 0.014), weight loss (p = 0.013), previously infected wound (p = 0.005), omitting mechanical bowel preparation (p = 0.005) and/or preoperative oral antibiotic use (p < 0.001), and wounds classified as contaminated or dirty/infected (p = 0.008). Patients who developed anastomotic leak had a longer length of hospital stay (17 vs 7 d; p < 0.001) and operative time (191 vs 162 min; p < 0.001). A multivariate model and nomogram were created. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective nature and short-term follow-up (30 d). CONCLUSIONS: An accurate prediction of anastomotic leak affecting morbidity and mortality after colorectal surgery using the proposed nomogram may facilitate decision making in elderly patients for healthcare providers.

Considering Value in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An Analysis of Costs and Outcomes Based on the Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approach for Proctectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare value (outcomes/costs) of proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer by 3 approaches: open, laparoscopic, and robotic. BACKGROUND: The role of minimally invasive proctectomy in rectal cancer is controversial. In the era of value-based medicine, costs must be considered along with outcomes. METHODS: Primary rectal cancer patients undergoing curative intent proctectomy at our institution between 2010 and 2014 were included. Patients were grouped by approach [open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and robotic surgery (RS)] on an intent-to-treat basis. Groups were compared by direct costs of hospitalization for the primary resection, 30-day readmissions, and ileostomy closure and for short-term outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 488 patients were evaluated; 327 were men (67%), median age was 59 (27-93) years, and restorative procedures were performed in 333 (68.2%). Groups were similar in demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment details. Significant outcome differences between groups were found in operative and anesthesia times (longer in the RS group), and in estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, length of stay, and postoperative complications (all higher in the open surgery group). No significant differences were found in short-term oncologic outcomes. Direct cost of the hospitalization for primary resection and total direct cost (including readmission/ileostomy closure hospitalizations) were significantly greater in the RS group. CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic and open approaches to proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer provide similar value. If robotic proctectomy is to be widely applied in the future, the costs of the procedure must be reduced.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic vs open colectomy: an assessment from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted cohort.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent hand-assisted colorectal laparoscopic (HALS) vs open colectomy were compared using recently released procedure-targeted database. METHODS: Review was conducted using the 2012 colectomy-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to final surgical approach: HALS vs open (planned). Groups were matched (1:1) based on age, gender, body mass index, surgical procedure, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and wound classification. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted for group comparison. RESULTS: Of 7,303 patients, 1,740 patients were matched in each group. Open group had higher proportion of patients with preoperative dyspnea (P = .01), ascites (P = .01), weight loss (P < .001), smoking history (P = .04), and increased work relative value units (P < .001). After adjusting for difference in baseline comorbidities, overall morbidity, superficial, deep, and organ-space surgical site infection, urinary tract infection, ileus, reoperation, readmission, and hospital stay were significantly higher in open group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted-data demonstrated several advantages of HALS compared with open colonic resection including shorter hospital stay and lower complication rate. Further adoption of HALS technique as a bridge to straight laparoscopy or tool in difficult cases can positively impact the short-term outcomes after colectomy when compared with open technique.

Comparison of straight vs hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: an assessment from the NSQIP procedure-targeted cohort.

BACKGROUND: The perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent straight laparoscopic (LAP) vs hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS) surgery were compared using a recently released procedure-targeted database. METHODS: The 2012 colectomy-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used and patients were classified into 2 groups according to the final surgical approach: LAP vs HALS. Demographics, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 7,843 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 4,656 (59%) patients in LAP colectomy and 3,187 (41%) in HALS colectomy groups. Groups were comparable in terms of preoperative characteristics and demographics. Mean operative time was slightly longer in LAP group (178 ± 86 vs 171 ± 84 minutes, P < .001). After covariate-adjustment analysis, the overall morbidity, superficial surgical site infection, and ileus rates remained slightly higher in HALS group. CONCLUSIONS: Both straight laparoscopic and hand-assisted approaches are used in colorectal surgery and may complement each other in challenging cases. Implementing the best approach to decrease postoperative complication rates and increase use of minimally invasive techniques may play a role in improving patient care and overall quality.

Robotic rectal surgery.

Robotic technology is increasingly used in colorectal surgery during last decade. Whether this technology will translate into clinical efficiency and value of care remains to be determined. This review aims to discuss current data in robotic rectal surgery with emphasize on ergonomics, cost, and learning curve aspects. All relevant articles are reviewed in addition to published and unpublished work from the authors' own experience.

A novel data collection and monitoring system for health status measures in patients undergoing lateral internal sphincterotomy: The Knowledge Program (TKP).

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The Knowledge Program (TKP) allows prospective data collection during routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of TKP for capturing and monitoring health status measures in patients undergoing lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS). METHODS: TKP data of patients undergoing LIS from December 2008 to May 2013 were retrieved. Health status measures including the Cleveland Global Quality of Life (CGQL), European Quality of Life Index (EQ-5D), Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), anorectal pain scores, and satisfaction questions were evaluated in the study. RESULTS: A total of 500 patients underwent LIS within the study period. Overall patient numbers responding to the health status measures in the pre- and postoperative period were as follows: CGQL: 112 preoperatively, 53 postoperatively; EQ-5D: 112 preoperatively, 55 postoperatively; FISI: 102 preoperatively, 30 postoperatively; and anorectal pain score: 107 preoperatively, 45 postoperatively. Among the responders, the number of patients who completed the health status measures both pre- and postoperatively was as follows: EQ-5D: 31, CGQL: 28, anorectal pain: 24, and FISI: 15. A total of 30 patients completed postoperative satisfaction and recommendation questions. Postoperative earliest (p = 0.02) and most recent (p = 0.01) anorectal pain visual analog scores were significantly lower than the preoperative measurements. The earliest postoperative EQ-5D scores were significantly higher than their preoperative values (p = 0.02). The majority of patients who completed the surveys said they were satisfied (70% and 67%) and would recommended (73% and 70%) LIS to others undergoing postoperative earliest and most recent follow up. CONCLUSION: LIS reduces anorectal pain without worsening quality of life. TKP captures information directly from patients and records it to a database which may reduce the risk of information loss or alteration.

Does laparoscopy reduce splenic injuries during colorectal resections? An assessment from the ACS-NSQIP database.

BACKGROUND: Nearly half of all incidental splenectomies caused by iatrogenic splenic injury occur during colorectal surgery. This study evaluates factors associated with incidental splenic procedures during colorectal surgery and their impact on short-term outcomes using a nationwide database. METHODS: Patients who underwent colorectal resections between 2005 and 2012 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database according to Current Procedural Terminology codes. Patients were classified into two groups based on whether they underwent a concurrent incidental splenic procedure at the time of the colorectal procedure. All splenic procedures except a preoperatively intended splenectomy performed in conjunction with colon or rectal resections were considered as incidental. Perioperative and short-term (30 day) outcomes were compared between the groups. RESULTS: In total, 93633 patients who underwent colon and/or rectal resection were identified. Among these, 215 patients had incidental splenic procedures (153 open splenectomy, 17 laparoscopic splenectomy, 36 splenorraphy, and 9 partial splenectomy). Open colorectal resections were associated with a significantly increased likelihood of incidental splenic procedures (OR 6.58, p < 0.001) compared to laparoscopic surgery. Incidental splenic procedures were associated with increased length of total hospital stay (OR 1.25, p < 0.001), mechanical ventilation dependency (OR 1.62, p = 0.02), transfusion requirement (OR: 3.84, p < 0.001), re-operation requirement (OR 1.7, p = 0.005), and sepsis (OR: 2.03, p = 0.001). Short-term advantages of splenic salvage (splenorraphy or partial splenectomy) included shorter length of total hospital stay (p = 0.001) and decreased need for re-operation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Incidental splenic procedures during colorectal resections are associated with worse short-term outcomes. Use of the laparoscopic technique decreases the need for incidental splenic procedures.

Outcomes associated with resident involvement in laparoscopic colorectal surgery suggest a need for earlier and more intensive resident training.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to determine if resident involvement in a large cohort of laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) cases negatively impacts outcomes and ultimately increases costs. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients who underwent LCS between 2005 and 2010. Patients were classified into two groups: postgraduate year (PGY; resident involvement) or Attending Only. A subgroup analysis was then conducted among the individual PGY levels (1-2, 3-5, ≥6) and Attending Only group. RESULTS: A total of 4,836 patients were included in the PGY group and 2,418 in the Attending Only group. Mean operative time (163.9 ± 66.7 vs. 140.7 ± 67.2 minutes, P < .001) and length of hospital stay (5.8 ± 5.4 vs. 5.6 ± 5.4 days, P = .015) were significantly longer in the PGY group. Surgical and nonsurgical complications and overall morbidity and mortality rates were similar between the two groups. Each individual PGY group was associated with longer operative time (P < .001), and PGY ≥ 6 was associated with an increased length of stay (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Although resident participation in LCS does not affect overall mortality or morbidity, it may negatively impact hospital costs through increased operative time and length of hospital stay. Early and intensive laparoscopy training may be necessary for improving residents' laparoscopy skills before their involvement in LCS.