Short-term outcomes following resection of right colon diverticulitis: a comparison of open and minimally invasive approaches using the NSQIP database.

BACKGROUND: Right colon diverticulitis is a rare disease process for which there are no established treatment guidelines, and outcomes following surgical management are underreported in the literature. We sought to describe the demographics of patients undergoing ileocecectomy for right colon diverticulitis and compare short-term postoperative outcomes between open and minimally invasive approaches. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) was queried for patients with diverticulitis of the colon who underwent ileocecectomy between 2012 and 2019. Patients with ascites, disseminated cancer, ASA class 5, and patients requiring mechanical ventilation were excluded. Preoperative, intraoperative, and 30-day postoperative outcomes were compared between the groups using both univariable chi-square or t-tests and multivariable logistical regression models. RESULTS: 484 patients met inclusion criteria, 150 (31%) of whom underwent open surgery and 334 (69%) who underwent minimally invasive surgery with an 18% conversion rate. 71% of patients were White, 11% of were Black, 7% were Hispanic, and 5% were Asian. The indication for surgery differed significantly by approach with acute diverticulitis representing 47% of indications for open cases and 25% for MIS cases (p < 0.0001). After adjusting for possible confounders, patients undergoing the open approach had a significantly higher chance of post-operative sepsis (p = 0.009) and ileus (p = 0.04) compared with MIS. Hospital length of stay was also significantly shorter after MIS compared to open (5.9 days vs. 11.5 days; p < 0.0001). Mean operative time was significantly longer in MIS than open (173 min vs. 198 min; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrates that minimally invasive surgery is associated with equivalent or improved short-term morbidity and shorter hospital stay despite longer mean operative time. Interestingly, unlike other countries where the prevalence of right colon diverticulitis is higher, a minority of patients requiring operative therapy in our study of patients in the Western hemisphere were of Asian descent.

Open versus minimally invasive small bowel resection for Crohn's disease: a NSQIP retrospective review and analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with Crohn's Disease will require surgical resection. While many studies have described outcomes following ileocecectomy, few have evaluated surgical resection of other portions of small bowel. We sought to compare open and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches for small bowel resection excluding ileocecectomy of patients with Crohn's Disease using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. METHODS: The NSQIP database was queried for patients with Crohn's disease or complications related to Crohn's disease who underwent segmental small bowel resection utilizing open or minimally invasive approaches between 2012 and 2018. Patients requiring ileocecectomy or diagnosed with ascites, disseminated cancer, pre-operative sepsis, ASA class 5, and patients requiring mechanical ventilation were excluded. The association of pre-operative variables including patient demographic information and comorbidities with surgical approach were examined using Fishers exact test. Intraoperative, and 30-day post-operative outcomes were compared between the groups using both univariate and multivariate logistical regression models. SAS was used for data analysis with p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: After exclusions, we found 1697 patients with Crohn's disease who underwent segmental small bowel resection, 1252 of whom underwent open surgery and 445 of whom underwent MIS. After adjusting for possible confounders with multivariable analysis, patients who underwent MIS had a lower incidence of wound events (surgical site, organ space, or deep wound infection, or dehiscence), post-operative bleeding, need for return to the operating room, and shorter total hospital length of stay despite longer operative times compared with open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective review of NSQIP shows that minimally invasive small bowel resection is associated with equivalent or improved morbidity over open surgery in select patients with small bowel Crohn's Disease. We show that in select patients minimally invasive small bowel resection can be safe and performed for patients with isolated small bowel Crohn's disease.

The impact of surgical approach on short- and long-term outcomes after rectal cancer resection in elderly patients: a national cancer database propensity score matched comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients are underrepresented in studies demonstrating the advantages of laparoscopy for the management of colorectal diseases. Moreover, few studies have examined the robotic approach in this population. In this retrospective analysis, we compare outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches in elderly patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer. METHODS: The U.S. National Cancer Database was queried for patients aged ≥ 65 with nonmetastatic adenocarcinoma of the rectum who underwent surgical resection from 2010 to 2016. Groups were separated based on approach (open, laparoscopic, robotic). One-to-one nearest neighbor propensity score matching (PSM) ± 1% caliper was performed across surgical approach cohorts to balance potential confounding covariates. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze the primary outcome of survival. Secondary outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria and PSM identified 1891 patients per approach (n = 5673). PSM provided adequate discrimination between cohorts (0.6 < AUC < 0.8), and potential confounding covariates did not significantly differ (respective P > 0.05). After PSM, robotic and laparoscopic approaches were associated with decreased odds of 90 day mortality compared to the open approach (P < 0.05). Compared to laparoscopy, a robotic approach was associated with increased odds of ≥ 12 regional lymph nodes examined and negative circumferential resection margin (P < 0.05). No differences were seen in 30 day or 90 day mortality between robotic and laparoscopic approaches. Cox proportional hazards regression showed that both robotic and laparoscopic approaches were significantly associated with decreased mortality hazards relative to open. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that in elderly patients, minimally invasive surgery for rectal adenocarcinoma was associated with equivalent or improved short- and long-term mortality over open surgery. Compared to laparoscopy, the robotic approach showed no survival disadvantage and greater odds of an appropriate oncological resection. Our study adds evidence to the conclusion that robotic rectal surgery can be safely performed in patients regardless of age.

Surgical management of splenic flexure colon cancer: a retrospective propensity-matched study comparing open and minimally invasive approaches using the national cancer database.

PURPOSE: Minimally invasive resection of colon cancer at the splenic flexure can be technically challenging with concerns for a suboptimal oncologic outcome. We aimed to compare open and minimally invasive approaches following curative resection. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with non-metastatic colon adenocarcinoma at the splenic flexure who underwent resection from 2010 to 2016. Cohorts were separated into open and minimally invasive approaches, and demographic and clinicopathologic variables were compared. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was utilized to balance potential confounding covariates between cohorts to elucidate the independent association between surgical approach and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze survival. Secondary outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression or Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: After matching, 842 patients were compared between approaches. Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery had no significant difference in regional nodes ≥ 12 examined, positive margins, negative circumferential margins, unplanned 30-day readmission, or time from surgery to initiation of chemotherapy when compared to patients who underwent open surgery. Minimally invasive surgery was significantly associated with decreased odds of 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and decreased mortality hazard for 5-year overall survival compared to open surgery. CONCLUSION: The optimal approach for surgical management of splenic flexure colon cancer has not been standardized given its rarity and exclusion from randomized controlled trials. Our retrospective review suggests that minimally invasive resection of splenic flexure colon cancers in carefully selected patients is associated with equivalent oncologic outcomes as well as improved short and long-term survival compared to an open approach.

The robotic colorectal experience: an outcomes and learning curve analysis of 502 patients.

AIM: This study aimed to present our experience with robotic colorectal surgery since its establishment at our institution in 2009. By examining the outcomes of over 500 patients, our experience provides a basis for assessing the introduction of a robotic platform in a colorectal practice. Specific measures investigated include intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes for all operations using the robotic platform. In addition, for our most commonly performed operations we wished to analyse the learning curve to improve operative proficiency. This is the largest single-surgeon robotic database analysed to date. METHOD: A prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery by a single surgeon at the George Washington University Hospital was retrospectively reviewed. Demographic data and perioperative outcomes were assessed. Additionally, an operating time learning curve analysis was performed. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria identified 502 patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery between October 2009 and December 2018. The most common indications for surgery were diverticulitis (22.9%), colon adenocarcinoma (22.1%) and rectal adenocarcinoma (19.5%). The most common operations were anterior/low anterior resection (33.9%), right hemicolectomy/ileocaecectomy (24.9%) and left hemicolectomy/sigmoidectomy (21.9%). The rate of conversion to open surgery was 4.8%. The most common postoperative complications were wound infection (5.0%), anastomotic leakage (4.0%) and abscess formation (2.8%). The operating time learning curve plateaued at 55-65 cases for anterior and low anterior resection and 35-45 cases for left hemicolectomy and sigmoidectomy. A clear learning curve was not seen in right hemicolectomy. CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted surgery can be performed in a diverse colorectal practice with low rates of conversion and postoperative complications. Plateau performance was achieved after 65 anterior/low anterior resections and 45 left and sigmoid colectomies.

Disparities in utilization of robotic surgery for colon cancer: an evaluation of the U.S. National Cancer Database.

Despite the benefits of minimally invasive surgery for colorectal procedures, significant disparities in access to these techniques remain. While these gaps have been well-documented for laparoscopy, few studies have evaluated inequalities in access to robotic surgery. We analyze whether disparities exist in the use of robotic surgery in the management of colon cancer. The U.S. National Cancer Database was queried for patients with non-metastatic colon adenocarcinoma who underwent resection with the robotic platform (2010-2016). Demographic, clinicopathologic, and treatment facility-related variables were analyzed with respect to preferential utilization of robotic surgery with multivariable logistic regression. Patients with metastatic disease, missing or incomplete surgical information, and those who underwent local tumor excision were excluded. 74,984 patients were identified, 3001 (4%) of whom underwent robotic surgery. In multivariable analysis, patients who were older, Black, or were living in an urban area had decreased odds of receiving robotic surgery compared with open or laparoscopic surgery. Patients who were privately insured or living in areas with higher education had increased odds of receiving robotic surgery. Robotic surgery was also preferentially associated with lower clinical stage, more recent year of diagnosis, and hospitals with higher procedural volume. As advantages of the robotic platform are becoming better understood, use of this approach is increasing in popularity for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer. Despite this, significant disparities exist with respect to patient demographics and socioeconomic factors, and access may only be limited to certain types of hospitals. Further studies are needed to define why these inequalities exist.

Comparing outcomes for non-metastatic rectal cancer in academic vs. community centers: A propensity-matched analysis of the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the impact of hospital academic status on outcomes following rectal cancer surgery. We compare these outcomes for nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma at academic versus community institutions. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (2010-2016) was queried for patients with nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent resection. Propensity score matching was performed across facility cohorts to balance confounding covariates. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze survival, other short and long-term outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression. RESULTS: After matching, 15,096 patients were included per cohort. Academic centers were associated with significantly decreased odds of conversion and positive margins with significantly increased odds of ≥12 regional nodes examined. Academic programs also had decreased odds of 30 and 90-day mortality and decreased 5-year mortality hazard. After matching for facility volume, no significant differences in outcomes between centers was seen. CONCLUSIONS: No difference between academic and community centers in outcomes following surgery for non-metastatic rectal cancer was seen after matching for facility procedural volume.

Robotic-assisted surgery for complicated and uncomplicated diverticulitis: A single-surgeon case-series comparison.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted techniques in colorectal surgery have dramatically increased. Comparative data on the management of uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis using robotics is lacking. The purpose of this study is to examine outcomes of patients who underwent robotic-assisted resection in diverticulitis. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database performed by a single surgeon was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for diverticulitis from October 2009 to November 2018. Demographic data, preoperative and intraoperative parameters and postoperative outcomes were assessed using χ2 or Fisher exact test with p values <0.05 considered significant. IRB approval was obtained for this study, #NCR190935. RESULTS: Comparison revealed significant differences in operative times (222 vs. 291 min, p < 0.00001), mean estimated blood loss (130 vs. 304 cc, p = 0.0003) and mean length of stay (3.9 vs. 5.0 days, p = 0.006). Low rates of postoperative complications were observed, with no significant differences noted for conversion to laparoscopy, surgical site infection, leak, intra-abdominal abscess, 30-day unplanned readmission or recurrence. CONCLUSION: Patients with complicated diverticulitis required longer operative time, had increased estimated blood loss and more often converted to an open procedure; however, overall rates of post-operative complications were low in both groups. RAS shows promise for use in complicated diverticulitis.

Surgical resection of T4 colon cancers: an NCDB propensity score-matched analysis of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches.

Historically, T4 tumors of the colon have been a contraindication to minimally invasive resection. The purpose of this study was to conduct a National Cancer Database analysis to compare the outcomes after curative treatment for T4 colon cancer between robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches. The US National Cancer Database was queried for patients with T4 adenocarcinoma of the colon who underwent curative resection. Groups were separated based on approach (open, laparoscopic, robotic). One to one nearest neighbor propensity score matching (PSM) ± 1% caliper was performed across surgical approach cohorts to balance potential confounding covariates. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze primary outcome of survival. Secondary outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression. Inclusion criteria and PSM identified 876 cases per treatment approach (n = 2628). PSM provided adequate discrimination between treatment cohorts (0.6 < AUC < 0.8) and potential confounding covariates did not significantly differ between cohorts (all respective P > 0.05). Patients who underwent a robotic approach had lower odds of conversion to laparotomy compared to the laparoscopic cohort (P < 0.0001). Laparoscopic and robotic approaches were associated with increased odds of > 12 lymph nodes examined, decreased odds of positive margins, and decreased odds of 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality compared to the open approach. Cox-proportional hazards regression showed that both robotic and laparoscopic approaches were significantly associated with decreased mortality hazards relative to open. Both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries achieved improved oncologic outcomes and survival compared to open resection of T4 cancers. A robotic-assisted approach was significantly associated with a lower conversion rate compared to the laparoscopic approach. This case-matched study demonstrates safety of using minimally invasive techniques in T4 cancers.