Laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with shorter length of stay without increased direct cost.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ileostomy closure with intracorporeal anastomosis offers potential advantages over open reversal with extracorporeal anastomosis, including earlier return of bowel function and reduced postoperative pain. In this study, we aim to compare the outcome and cost of laparoscopic ileostomy reversal (utilizing either intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis) with open ileostomy reversal. METHODS: A retrospective review of sequential patients undergoing elective loop ileostomy reversal between 2013 and 2016 at a single, high-volume institution was performed. Patients were stratified on the basis of operative approach: open reversal, laparoscopic-assisted reversal with extracorporeal anastomosis (LE), and laparoscopic reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis (LI). Linear and logistic regressions were utilized to perform multivariate analysis and determine risk-adjusted outcomes. RESULTS: Of 132 sequential cases of loop ileostomy reversal, 50 (38%) underwent open, 49 (37%) underwent LE, and 33 (22%) underwent LI. Demographic data and preoperative comorbidities were similar between the three cohorts. Median length of stay was significantly shorter for LI (52.1 h, p < 0.05) compared to open (69.0 h) and LE (69.6 h). After risk-adjusted analysis, length of stay was significant shorter in LI compared to LE (GM 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93, p < 0.01) and open reversal (GM 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.93, p < 0.01). Risk-adjusted 30-day morbidity rates were similar for LI compared to LE (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.081-2.33, p = 0.33) and open reversal (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.09-3.125, p = 0.48). Median in-hospital direct cost was similar for LI ($6575.00), LE ($6722.50), and open reversal ($6181.00). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ileostomy reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with shorter length of stay without increased overall direct cost. The technique of laparoscopic ileostomy reversal warrants continued study in a randomized clinical trial.

Low-Power Wearable Systems for Continuous Monitoring of Environment and Health for Chronic Respiratory Disease.

We present our efforts toward enabling a wearable sensor system that allows for the correlation of individual environmental exposures with physiologic and subsequent adverse health responses. This system will permit a better understanding of the impact of increased ozone levels and other pollutants on chronic asthma conditions. We discuss the inefficiency of existing commercial off-the-shelf components to achieve continuous monitoring and our system-level and nano-enabled efforts toward improving the wearability and power consumption. Our system consists of a wristband, a chest patch, and a handheld spirometer. We describe our preliminary efforts to achieve a submilliwatt system ultimately powered by the energy harvested from thermal radiation and motion of the body with the primary contributions being an ultralow-power ozone sensor, an volatile organic compounds sensor, spirometer, and the integration of these and other sensors in a multimodal sensing platform. The measured environmental parameters include ambient ozone concentration, temperature, and relative humidity. Our array of sensors also assesses heart rate via photoplethysmography and electrocardiography, respiratory rate via photoplethysmography, skin impedance, three-axis acceleration, wheezing via a microphone, and expiratory airflow. The sensors on the wristband, chest patch, and spirometer consume 0.83, 0.96, and 0.01 mW, respectively. The data from each sensor are continually streamed to a peripheral data aggregation device and are subsequently transferred to a dedicated server for cloud storage. Future work includes reducing the power consumption of the system-on-chip including radio to reduce the entirety of each described system in the submilliwatt range.

Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for total abdominal colectomy.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of minimally invasive surgery is increasing in colorectal surgery. We sought to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent elective open, laparoscopic, and robotic total abdominal colectomy. METHODS: The NIS database was used to examine the clinical data of patients who underwent an elective total colectomy procedure during 2009-2012. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to compare the three surgical approaches. RESULTS: We sampled a total of 26,721 patients who underwent elective total colectomy. Of these, 16,780 (62.8 %) had an open operation, while 9934 (37.2 %) had a minimally invasive approach (9614 laparoscopic surgery, and 326 robotic surgery). The most common indication for an operation was ulcerative colitis (31 %). Patients who underwent open surgery had significantly higher mortality and morbidity compared to laparoscopic (AOR 2.48, 1.30, P < 0.01) and robotic approaches (AOR 1.04, 1.30, P < 0.01 and P = 0.04, respectively). There was no significant difference in mortality and morbidity between the laparoscopic and robotic approaches (AOR 0.96, 1.03, P = 0.10, P = 0.78). However, conversion rate of laparoscopic surgery to open was significantly higher than that of robotic approach (13.3 vs. 1.5 %, P < 0.01). Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery had significantly lower total hospital charges compared to patients who underwent open surgery (mean difference = $21,489, P < 0.01). Also, total hospital charges for a robotic approach were significantly higher than for a laparoscopic approach (mean difference = $15,595, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive approaches to total colectomy are safe, with the advantage of lower mortality and morbidity compared to an open approach. Although there was no significant difference in the morbidity between minimally invasive approaches, robotic surgery had a significantly lower conversion rate compared to laparoscopic approach. Total hospital charges are significantly higher in robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic approach.

Laparoscopic appendectomy trends and outcomes in the United States: data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), 2004-2011.

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is becoming the standard procedure of choice for appendicitis. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and trends of LA for acute appendicitis in the United States and to compare outcomes of LA with open appendectomy (OA). Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, we examined patients who underwent appendectomy for acute appendicitis from 2004 to 2011. A total of 2,593,786 patients underwent appendectomy during this period. Overall, the rate of LA was 60.5 per cent (children: 58.1%; adults: 63%; elderly: 48.7%). LA rate significantly increased from 43.3 per cent in 2004 to 75 per cent in 2011. LA use increased 66 per cent in nonperforated appendicitis versus 100 per cent increase in LA use for perforated appendicitis. The LA rate increased in all age groups. The increased LA use was more significant in male patients (84%) compared with female patients (62%). The overall conversion rate of LA to OA was 6.3 per cent. Compared with OA, LA had a significantly lower complication rate, a lower mortality rate, a shorter mean hospital stay, and lower mean total hospital charges in both nonperforated and perforated appendices. LA has become an established procedure for appendectomy in nonperforated and perforated appendicitis in all rates exceeding OA. Conversion rate is relatively low (6.3%).

A nationwide analysis of the use and outcomes of epidural analgesia in open colorectal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Epidural analgesia has demonstrated superiority over conventional analgesia in controlling pain following open colorectal resections. Controversy exists regarding cost-effectiveness and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2002-2010) was retrospectively reviewed for elective open colorectal surgeries performed for benign and malignant conditions with or without the use of epidural analgesia. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare outcomes between epidural and conventional analgesia. RESULTS: A total 888,135 patients underwent open colorectal resections. Epidural analgesia was only used in 39,345 (4.4 %) cases. Epidurals were more likely to be used in teaching hospitals and rectal cancer cases. On multivariate analysis, in colonic cases, epidural analgesia lowered hospital charges by US$4,450 (p < 0.001) but was associated with longer length of stay by 0.16 day (p < 0.05) and a higher incidence of ileus (OR = 1.17; p < 0.01). In rectal cases, epidural analgesia was again associated with lower hospital charges by US$4,340 (p < 0.001) but had no effect on ileus and length of stay. The remaining outcomes such as mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, anastomotic leak, urinary tract infection, and retention were unaffected by the use of epidurals. CONCLUSION: Epidural analgesia in open colorectal surgery is safe but does not add major clinical benefits over conventional analgesia. It appears however to lower hospital charges.

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: While robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is becoming increasingly popular, data comparing its outcomes to other established techniques remain limited to small case series. Moreover, there are no large studies evaluating the trends of RACS at the national level. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009-2010 was retrospectively reviewed for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal procedures performed for cancer, benign polyps, and diverticular disease. Trends in different settings, indications, and demographics were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare selected outcomes between RACS and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). RESULTS: An estimated 128,288 colorectal procedures were performed through minimally invasive techniques over the study period, and RACS was used in 2.78 % of cases. From 2009 to 2010, the use of robotics increased in all hospital settings but was still more common in large, urban, and teaching hospitals. Rectal cancer was the most common indication for RACS, with a tendency toward its selective use in male patients. On multivariate analysis, robotic surgery was associated with higher hospital charges in colonic ($11,601.39; 95 % CI 6,921.82-16,280.97) and rectal cases ($12,964.90; 95 % CI 6,534.79-19,395.01), and higher rates of postoperative bleeding in colonic cases (OR = 2.15; 95 % CI 1.27- 3.65). RACS was similar to CLS with respect to length of hospital stay, morbidity, anastomotic leak, and ileus. Conversion to open surgery was significantly lower in robotic colonic and rectal procedures (0.41; 95 % CI 0.25-0.67) and (0.10; 95 % CI 0.06-0.16), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RACS is still limited in the United States. However, its use increased over the study period despite higher associated charges and no real advantages over laparoscopy in terms of outcome. The one advantage is lower conversion rates.

Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The risk factors for anastomotic leak (AL) after anterior resection have been evaluated in several studies and remain controversial as the findings are often inconsistent or inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the risk factors for AL after anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2006 to 2009. PATIENTS: A total of 72 055 patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective anterior resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To build a predictive model for AL using demographic characteristics and preadmission comorbidities, the lasso algorithm for logistic regression was used to select variables most predictive of AL. RESULTS: The AL rate was 13.68%. The AL group had higher mortality vs the non-AL group (1.78% vs 0.74%). Hospital length of stay and cost were significantly higher in the AL group. Laparoscopic and open resections with a diverting stoma had a higher incidence of AL than those without a stoma (15.97% vs 13.25%). Multivariate analysis revealed that weight loss and malnutrition, fluid and electrolyte disorders, male sex, and stoma placement were associated with a higher risk of AL. The use of laparoscopy was associated with a lower risk of AL. Postoperative ileus, wound infection, respiratory/renal failure, urinary tract infection, pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, and myocardial infarction were independently associated with AL. CONCLUSIONS: Anastomotic leak after anterior resection increased mortality rates and health care costs. Weight loss and malnutrition, fluid and electrolyte disorders, male sex, and stoma placement independently increased the risk of leak. Laparoscopy independently decreased the risk of leak. Further studies are needed to delineate the significance of these findings.

Outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009.

BACKGROUND: Specific International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes for laparoscopic procedures introduced in 2008 allow a more accurate evaluation of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009, a retrospective analysis of surgical colorectal cancer and diverticulitis patients was conducted. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic, open, and converted surgery. RESULTS: A total of 121,910 patients underwent resection for cancer and diverticulitis, 35.41% of whom underwent laparoscopic surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery had lower postoperative complication rates, lower mortality, shorter hospital stays, and lower costs. Compared to open surgery, laparoscopic surgery independently decreased mortality, postoperative anastomotic leak, urinary tract infection, ileus or obstruction, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and wound infection. Converted surgery was independently associated with anastomotic leak, wound infection, ileus or obstruction, and urinary tract infection. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has lower postoperative complications, lower mortality, lower costs, and shorter hospital stays. Conversion had higher complications compared with laparoscopy. The use of laparoscopy should increase with efforts to minimize conversion.

Does primary anastomosis with diversion have any advantages over Hartmann's procedure in acute diverticulitis?.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for acute complicated diverticulitis is still a matter of debate. We evaluated outcomes of primary anastomosis with proximal diversion (PAD) versus Hartman's procedure (HP) in acute diverticulitis. METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample database, we examined the clinical data of patients who underwent an urgent open colorectal resection (sigmoidectomy or anterior resection) for acute diverticulitis from 2002 to 2007 in the United States. We evaluated patient characteristics, patient comorbidities, perioperative complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay and total hospital charges between two groups. RESULTS: A total of 99,259 patients underwent urgent surgery for acute diverticulitis during these years (Primary anastomosis without diversion: 39.3%; HP: 57.3% and PAD: 3.4%). The overall complication rate was lower in the PAD group compared with the HP group (PAD: 39.06% vs. HP: 40.84%; p = 0.04). Patients in the HP group had a shorter mean length of stay (12.5 vs.14.4 days, p < 0.001) and lower mean hospital costs (USD 65,037 vs. USD 73,440, p < 0.01) compared with the PAD group. Mortality was higher in the HP group (4.82 vs. 3.99%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: PAD has improved outcomes compared with HP, and should be considered in patients who are deemed candidates for two-stage operations for acute diverticulitis.

Does laparoscopic appendectomy impart an advantage over open appendectomy in elderly patients?

BACKGROUND: The use of laparoscopy in the elderly has been increasing in recent years. The data comparing laparoscopic (LA) with open appendectomy (OA) in elderly patients are minimal. We evaluated outcomes of LA versus OA in perforated and nonperforated appendicitis in elderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years). METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, clinical data of elderly patients who underwent LA and OA for suspected acute appendicitis were evaluated from 2006 to 2008. RESULTS: A total of 65,464 elderly patients underwent urgent appendectomy during this period. The rate of perforated appendicitis was twice as high in elderly patients (50 vs. 25%, p < 0.01) and rate of LA in elderly patients was lower (52 vs. 63%, p < 0.01) compared with patients younger than aged 65 years. Utilization of LA increased 24% from 46.5% in 2006 to 57.8% in 2008 (p < 0.01). In elderly patients with acute nonperforated appendicitis, LA had lower overall complication rate (15.82 vs. 23.49%, p < 0.01), in-hospital mortality (0.39 vs. 1.31%, p < 0.01), hospital charges ($30,414 vs. $34,095, p < 0.01), and mean length of stay (3.0 vs. 4.8 days, p < 0.01) compared with OA. Additionally, in perforated appendicitis in elderly patients, LA was associated with lower overall complication rate (36.27 vs. 46.92%, p < 0.01), in-hospital mortality (1.4 vs. 2.63%, p < 0.01), mean hospital charges ($43,339 vs. $57,943, p < 0.01), and shorter mean LOS (5.8 vs. 8.7 days, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy can be performed safely with significant advantages compared with open appendectomy in the elderly and should be considered the procedure of choice for perforated and nonperforated appendicitis in these patients.