The robotic NICE procedure outperforms conventional laparoscopic extracorporeal-assisted colorectal resection: results of a matched cohort analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We introduced the robotic NICE procedure for left-sided colorectal resection in 2018 in which the entire procedure is performed without loss of pneumoperitoneum and without an abdominal wall incision by performing natural orifice-assisted transrectal extraction of the specimen and intracorporeal anastomosis. We compare the results of the NICE procedure versus conventional laparoscopic resection, which was our standard approach prior to 2018. METHODS: A matched pair case-control study compared patients following the NICE procedure versus those who underwent laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resection with conventional extracorporeal-assisted technique. Cases were performed at an Academic Medical Center and recorded in a prospective database to analyze perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: From a total cohort of 352 patients, 83 were matched in each group. When comparing the NICE procedure vs. the Extracorporeal-Assisted laparoscopic group, there were no significant differences in age (58.5 vs. 59.3 years old), sex (47 vs. 42 Female), body mass index (27.4 vs. 27.5 kg/m2), ASA, diagnosis, or type of surgery. Operative time (198.8 vs. 197.7 min), blood loss (56.0 vs. 53.3 ml), intraoperative complications (0.0% vs. 0.0%), and conversion rates (0.0% vs. 0.0%) were similar in both groups. The NICE procedure was associated with significantly earlier return of bowel function (40.7 vs. 23.6 h), shorter length of stay (3.1 vs. 2.2 days), and lower total opioid use (94.6 vs. 70.5 morphine milligram equivalents). Overall, there were no differences in postoperative abscess formation, complications, readmission, or reoperation rates. CONCLUSION: When compared to conventional laparoscopic resection, the NICE procedure is associated with short-term benefits including earlier recovery and less opioid use without increased operative time or increased risk of complications. Multicenter studies are recommended to validate benefits and limitations of this technique.

The success rate of robotic natural orifice intracorporeal anastomosis and transrectal extraction (NICE procedure) in a large cohort of consecutive unselected patients.

BACKGROUND: The Robotic NICE procedure is a total intracorporeal natural orifice approach in which specimen extraction and anastomosis is accomplished without an abdominal wall incision other than the port sites themselves. We aim to present the success rate of the NICE procedure in a large cohort of unselected consecutive patients presenting with colorectal disease using a stepwise and reproducible robotic approach. METHODS: Consecutive patients who presented with benign or malignant disease requiring left-sided colorectal resection and anastomosis between May 2018 and June 2021 were evaluated. Data abstracted included demographic, clinical data, disease features, intervention data, and outcomes data. The main outcome was success rate of Intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA), transrectal extraction of specimen (TRSE), and conversion rate. RESULTS: A total of 306 patients underwent NICE procedure. Diverticulitis was the main diagnosis (64%) followed by colorectal neoplasm (27%). Median operative time was 219 min, and the median estimated blood loss was 50 ml. ICA was achieved in all cases (100%). TRSE was successfully achieved in 95.4% of cases. In 14 patients (4.6%), an abdominal incision was required due to inability to extract a bulky specimen through the rectum. There overall postoperative complications rate was 12.4%. Eight patients (2.6%) experienced postoperative ileus. There were no superficial or deep surgical site infection (SSI). Eleven patients (3.6%) developed organ SSI space including 5 patients with intra-abdominal abscess and 4 patients with anastomotic leak. There was one mortality (0.3%) due to toxic megacolon from resistant Clostridium difficile. The 30-day reoperation rate was 2.9% (n = 9) including six patients presenting with organ space SSI and three patients with postoperative obstruction at the diverting loop ileostomy site. CONCLUSION: The NICE procedure is associated with a very high success rate for both intracorporeal anastomosis and transrectal specimen extraction in a large cohort of unselected patients.

Success rates and outcomes of the robotic NICE procedure across complicated and uncomplicated diverticulitis cases.

INTRODUCTION: We implemented the NICE procedure as a robotic natural orifice colorectal resection utilizing the rectum to extract the specimen and complete an intracorporal anastomosis for diverticulitis in 2018. Although complicated diverticulitis is associated with higher rates of conversion and post-operative morbidity, we hypothesized that the stepwise approach of the NICE procedure can be equally successful in this cohort. We aimed to compare feasibility and outcomes of the NICE procedure for uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis. METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting with diverticulitis who underwent robotic NICE procedure from May 2018 through June 2021 were included. Cases were stratified into uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis (fistula, abscess, or stricture). Demographic, clinical, disease, intervention, and outcomes data were analyzed. The main outcome measures were return of bowel function, length of stay, opioid consumption, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Of a total of 190 patients, those presenting with uncomplicated diverticulitis (53.2%) were compared to those with complicated diverticulitis (47.8%). Uncomplicated diverticulitis had fewer low anterior resections (15.8% vs 49.4%; p < 0.001) and shorter median operative time (186 vs 220 min; p < 0.001). Both cohorts had equal rates of successful intracorporeal anastomosis (100%) and successful transrectal extraction (100% vs 98.9%; p = 0.285). Both cohorts had similar return of bowel function (median 21 h and 18.5; p = 0.149), median length of hospital stay (2 days, p = 0.015) and mean total opioid use (68.4 MME vs 67.3; p = 0.91). There were also no significant differences in overall postoperative complication rate over a 30-day time period (8.9% vs 12.5%; p = 0.44), readmission (6.9% vs 5.6%; p = 0.578) and reoperation (3% vs 4.5%; p = 0.578). CONCLUSION: Despite being inherently more complex and technically challenging, complicated diverticulitis patients have similar success rates and post-operative outcomes compared to uncomplicated diverticulitis patients when undergoing the NICE procedure. These results implicate the benefits of robotic natural orifice techniques may be even more pronounced in complicated diverticulitis patients.

Robotic NICE Procedure Using Handsewn Technique.

INTRODUCTION: In 2018, we described a robotic natural orifice-assisted left-sided colorectal resection with intracorporeal anastomosis and transrectal extraction of the specimen and termed it the natural orifice intracorporeal anastomosis with transrectal extraction procedure. More recently, we have explored the feasibility, safety, and utility of performing total handsewn intracorporeal anastomosis. We present a technical video and initial experience depicting the unique steps to accomplish this procedure with colorectal end-to-end handsewn anastomosis. TECHNIQUE: Twenty natural orifice intracorporeal anastomosis with transrectal extraction procedures with end-to-end handsewn intracorporeal anastomosis were performed. A video depicting the essential steps with 2 variations of the handsewn techniques is presented along with short-term outcomes. RESULTS: The most common indication was complicated diverticulitis followed by rectal cancer and deep infiltrative endometriosis of the rectum. The mean operative time was 235 minutes (99-294 min), and there were no intraoperative complications or conversions. Handsewn end-to-end intracorporeal anastomosis was successful in all patients. Natural orifice transrectal extraction was successful in 17 of 20 (85%) patients. The mean postoperative length of stay was 2.1 days (±1.05 SD). There were 3 major complications. One patient developed a deep surgical site infection, and another patient had an organ space abscess. Both patients required readmission and were treated with antibiotics alone. One patient, who had a diverting ileostomy performed at the time of the index procedure, developed subclinical dehiscence of the anastomosis, which healed without intervention but resulted in a delay in ileostomy reversal. There were no additional readmissions and no reoperations or mortalities. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic natural orifice intracorporeal anastomosis with transrectal extraction procedure and colorectal end-to-end handsewn anastomosis was feasible and safe in this initial series. This technique can be successfully performed in a total intracorporeal manner without the need for an abdominal wall extraction incision or any circular stapling devices.

Real-World Data on Liposomal Bupivacaine and Inpatient Hospital Costs After Colorectal Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: This study compared costs of care among colorectal surgery patients who received liposomal bupivacaine versus those who did not (control) from a health institution perspective. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This pharmacoeconomic evaluation was conducted among adults undergoing open or minimally invasive colorectal resection at an academic medical center from May 2016 to February 2018. Healthcare resource utilization was derived from the electronic health record. Total cost of care (2018 USD) was analyzed using a generalized linear model adjusted for American Society of Anesthesiologists score, enhanced recovery after surgery management, open surgery, opioid use before surgery, height, cancer, and age. The primary analysis used public costs. A sensitivity analysis used internal costs from the hospital to maximize internal validity. RESULTS: Of 486 included patients, 286 (59%) received liposomal bupivacaine. Total cost of care using public costs included perioperative local anesthetics (mean ± standard deviation [SD]: $392 ± 74 liposomal bupivacaine versus $8 ± 13 control), analgesics within 48 h after surgery (mean ± SD: $132 ± 99 liposomal bupivacaine versus $117 ± 127 control), postoperative ileus management (mean ± SD: $5 ± 51 liposomal bupivacaine versus $65 ± 284 control), and hospital length of stay (mean ± SD: $4459 ± 3576 liposomal bupivacaine versus $7769 ± 7082 control). Liposomal bupivacaine was associated with an adjusted absolute difference in total cost of care of -$1435 (95% confidence interval -$2401 to -$470; P = 0.004) using public costs and -$1345 (95% confidence interval -$2215 to -$476; P = 0.002) using internal costs. CONCLUSIONS: Use of liposomal bupivacaine in colorectal surgery was associated with a significant reduction in total cost of care that was predominately driven by reduced costs for hospital stay and postoperative ileus management despite higher medication costs.

A national evaluation of the use and survival impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in Stage II colon cancer from the national cancer database.

AIM: Stage II colon cancers are a heterogeneous category, with controversy over use of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). Patients with high-risk features may benefit from AC to improve overall survival (OS). Current guidelines do not routinely recommend AC in low-risk cases, but the actual use and benefit on OS in this cohort have not been fully examined on a national scale. We aimed to evaluate the use and impact of AC on OS in low-risk Stage II colon cancer. METHODS: The national cancer database was reviewed for Stage II colon cancers undergoing curative resection (2010-2015). Cases with preoperative radio-chemotherapy or high-risk features were excluded. Cases were stratified into 'AC' and 'no AC' cohorts, and then propensity score matched. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysed OS. The main outcome measures were the incidence and impact of AC on OS in low-risk Stage II colon cancer. RESULTS: Of 39 926 patients evaluated, 8.2% (n = 3275) received AC. Matching resulted in 3275 cases per cohort. AC significantly improved 1-, 3- and 5-year OS versus no AC (P = 0.0017). The 5-year absolute risk reduction was 2.6%, relative risk reduction 12%, with a number needed to treat of 38. In the Cox model, AC remained significantly associated with increased OS (hazard ratio 0.816; 95% CI 0.713-0.934; P < 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: From this dataset, AC was associated with improved OS in low-risk Stage II disease. These findings from a large-scale sample question current guidelines and the need for better risk stratification. Further study with more robust variables is warranted to determine AC best practices.

Colorectal cancer in the 45-to-50 age group in the United States: a National Cancer Database (NCDB) analysis.

BACKGROUND: Amid increasing awareness of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), guidelines in the United States (US) recently lowered the recommended routine CRC screening age from 50 to 45 in average-risk individuals. There are little data on the number of patients in this age group diagnosed with CRC prior to these changes. Our objective was to audit the historic CRC case trends and impact of CRC in the 45-to-50-year-old category prior to new screening recommendations. METHODS: Colorectal adenocarcinoma cases in 45-to-50-year-old patients were queried from the NCDB (2004-2017). Cases were stratified by sex, race, and site. The disability-adjusted lost years (DALY) and lost earnings were estimated. The average annual percentage changes (AAPC) of CRC incidence were estimated using jointpoint analysis. The main outcome measures were DALY and lost earnings. Secondary outcome measures were the 2004-2017 AAPC and the cumulative incidence of potential CRC cases in the 45-to-50 cohort through 2030 without guideline changes. RESULTS: 67,442 CRC patients in the 45-to-50 demographic were identified. The CRC burden resulted 899,905 DALY and $17 billion in lost earnings. The 2004-2017 AAPC was 1.6%, with an estimated 13-year increase of 25%. There were sex-, race-, and anatomic site-specific discrepancies with estimated 13-year increases of 30% for males, 110% for American Indian/ Alaska Natives/ Asian American/ Pacific Islander races, and 31% for rectal cancer by 2030. CONCLUSION: CRC has been steadily increasing in the 45-to-50 age group, with tremendous disability and cost ensuing. There is great potential benefit from lowering the recommended routine CRC screening age to 45. Targeted intervention could ensure the most vulnerable segments benefit from the new guidelines, in both reducing the incidence and improving survivorship in CRC patients.

Opioid-Sparing Effect of Liposomal Bupivacaine and Intravenous Acetaminophen in Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the opioid-sparing effect of liposomal bupivacaine and intravenous acetaminophen in colorectal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a retrospective, 2 × 2 factorial cohort conducted at an academic medical center from May 2016 to February 2018. Patients undergoing open or minimally invasive colorectal resection were included. Exclusion criteria were age <18 y, surgery after second hospital day, ostomy, and allergy to acetaminophen, opioids, or bupivacaine. Intraoperative liposomal bupivacaine and intravenous acetaminophen administration within 18 h after surgery were evaluated. The primary outcome was intravenous morphine milligram equivalents administered within 24 h after surgery. A linear regression model adjusted for American Society of Anesthesiologists score, enhanced recovery after surgery management, open surgery, opioid use before surgery, and height was used for the primary analysis. RESULTS: Among 486 included patients, 193 received both liposomal bupivacaine and intravenous acetaminophen, 93 received liposomal bupivacaine only, 104 received intravenous acetaminophen only, and 96 did not receive either. On average, patients received 21 (SD = 31) morphine equivalents over 24 h. Intraoperative liposomal bupivacaine was associated with a reduction of morphine equivalents (adjusted change -11, 95% CI -17 to -6), but intravenous acetaminophen was not (2, 95% CI -3 to 7). Intraoperative liposomal bupivacaine was associated with a reduction of length of stay (adjusted change = -1.2 d, 95% CI -2.1 to -0.3), but intravenous acetaminophen was not (adjusted change = 1.5 d, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.2). CONCLUSIONS: Liposomal bupivacaine was associated with a significant reduction of opioid use within 24 h after colorectal surgery, but intravenous acetaminophen was not.

Robotic natural-orifice IntraCorporeal anastomosis with Extraction (NICE procedure) for complicated diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Totally intracorporeal surgery for left-sided resection carries numerous potential advantages by avoiding crossing staple lines and eliminating the need for an abdominal incision. For those with complicated diverticulitis, minimally invasive surgery is known to be technically challenging due to inflamed tissue, distorted pelvic anatomy, and obliterated tissue planes, resulting in high conversion rates. We aim to illustrate the stepwise approach and modifications required to successful complete the robotic Natural-orifice IntraCorporeal anastomosis with transrectal specimen Extraction (NICE) procedure in this cohort. METHODS: Consecutive, elective, unselected patients presenting with complicated diverticulitis defined as fistula, abscess and stricture underwent the NICE procedure over a 24-month period. Demographic and intraoperative data were collected, and video recordings were reviewed and edited on encrypted server. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients (50% female) underwent the NICE procedure for complicated diverticulitis with a mean age of 58.9 years and mean BMI of 30.7 kg/m2. The mean operative time was 231.6 min. All cases (100%) were achieved with intracorporeal anastomosis using a circular stapling device. All but one patient (98.3%) had successful transrectal extraction of the specimen. Forty-four (73%) of the specimens required a specimen-thinning maneuver to successfully extract the specimen and there were no conversions. We identified seven key technical modifications and considerations to facilitate successful completion of the procedure which are illustrated, including early release of the disease, mesentery-sparing dissection, dual instrument control of the mesenteric vasculature, release of the rectal reflection, use of NICE back table, specimen-thinning maneuver, and closure of the rectal cuff. CONCLUSION: We present a stepwise approach with key modifications to successfully achieve totally robotic intracorporeal resection for those presenting with complicated diverticulitis. This approach may help overcome the technical challenges and provide a foundation for reproducible results.

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.

Transversus abdominis plane blocks: pilot of feasibility and the learning curve.

BACKGROUND: Our goal was to evaluate the learning curve for transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block placement and identify issues that impede successful placement. METHODS: Three novices were prospectively evaluated performing ultrasound-guided TAP blocks in 10 consecutive patients. Operators were assessed on medication knowledge, setup/placement, procedural steps, and performance time. Times were compared to an expert for efficiency and competence. The main outcome measures were procedures needed for competence and variables associated with increased coaching/procedure time. RESULTS: In the 30 patient sample, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 30.9 (standard deviation [SD], 5.79). Fifteen patients were obese (BMI > 30), seven (23.3%) super obese (BMI > 35), and 15 had prior abdominal surgery. The mean setup time was 107.5 s (SD, 87), right-side placement was 131.8 s (SD, 60.3), left-side placement 114.8 s (SD, 40.5), and total time 354 s (SD, 111). By the second attempt, all operators were fluent in the medication and setup. At block 3, operators 1 and 3 reached competence in performance time; by block 4, all three operators reached time competence. After reaching competence, outliers in procedure times were only experienced for extremes in BMI (<20 and >35). Additional coaching was needed in four patients with prior abdominal surgery to decipher the correct planes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our pilot, by four attempts, novices reach appropriate speeds with progressively less coaching to safely and efficiently place TAP blocks. Extremes of BMI and prior abdominal surgery impact procedural time and may required additional coaching to facilitate placement. Given the promising results, further work on developing best practices for education and implementation is warranted.

A national evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes in open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical value is based on optimizing clinical and financial outcomes. The clinical benefits of laparoscopic surgery are well established; however, many patients are still not offered a laparoscopic procedure. Our objective was to compare the modern clinical and financial outcomes of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. METHODS: The Premier Perspective database identified patients undergoing elective colorectal resections from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013. Cases were stratified by operative approach into laparoscopic and open cohorts. Groups were controlled on all demographics, diagnosis, procedural, hospital characteristics, surgeon volume, and surgeon specialty and then compared for clinical and financial outcomes. The main outcome measures were length of stay (LOS), complications, readmission rates, and cost by surgical approach. RESULTS: A total of 6343 patients were matched and analyzed in each cohort. The most common diagnosis was diverticulitis (p = 0.0835) and the most common procedure a sigmoidectomy (p = 0.0962). The LOS was significantly shorter in laparoscopic compared to open (mean 5.78 vs. 7.80 days, p < 0.0001). The laparoscopic group had significantly lower readmission (5.82 vs. 7.68 %, p < 0.0001), complication (32.60 vs. 42.28 %, p < 0.0001), and mortality rates (0.52 vs. 1.28 %, p < 0.0001). The total cost was significantly lower in laparoscopic than in open (mean $17,269 vs. $20,552, p < 0.0001). By category, laparoscopy was significantly more cost-effective for pharmacy (p < 0.0001), room and board (p < 0.0001), recovery room (p = 0.0058), ICU (p < 0.0001), and laboratory and imaging services (both p < 0.0001). Surgical supplies (p < 0.0001), surgery (p < 0.0001), and anesthesia (p = 0.0053) were higher for the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy is more cost-effective and produces better patient outcomes than open colorectal surgery. Minimally invasive colorectal surgery is now the standard that should be offered to patients, providing value to both patient and provider.

Evaluating quality across minimally invasive platforms in colorectal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: There is an increasing emphasis on optimizing and measuring surgical quality. The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive techniques have been proven; however, direct comparison of outcomes across platforms has not been performed. Our goal was to compare operative times and quality across three minimally invasive platforms in colorectal surgery. METHODS: A prospective database was reviewed for elective minimally invasive surgery (MIS) cases from 2008 to 2014. Patients were stratified into multiport laparoscopic, single-incision laparoscopic (SILS) or robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches (RALS). Demographics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was used to predict the demographic and procedural factors and outcomes associated with each platform. The main outcome measures were operative time and surgical quality by approach. RESULTS: A total of 1055 cases were evaluated-28.4 % LAP, 18.5 % RALS, and 53.1 % SILS. RALS had the most complex patients, pathology, and procedures. The main diagnosis for RALS was rectal cancer (49.5 %), patients predominantly underwent pelvic surgery (72.8 %), had higher rates of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (p < 0.001) and stoma creation (p < 0.001). RALS had the longest operative time and highest complication and readmissions rates (all p < 0.001). Multiport patients were older than SILS and RALS (p = 0.021), had the most intraoperative complications (p < 0.001), conversions (p < 0.001), and had the longest length of stay (p = 0.001). SILS had the shortest operative times (p < 0.001), length of stay (p = 0.001), and lowest rates of complications (p < 0.001), readmissions (p < 0.001), and unplanned reoperation (p = 0.014). All platforms offered high quality (HARM score 0) from overall short LOS, low readmission, and mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Multiport, RALS, and SILS each serve a distinct demographic and disease profile and have predictable outcomes. All have risks and benefits, but offer overall high-quality care with a composite of LOS, readmission, and mortality rates. Operative times were directly associated with readmission rates. As all three platforms offer good quality, the choice of which MIS approach to use should be guided by demographics and disease process.

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

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies evaluating laparoscopic colectomy and outcomes compared with open surgery have concentrated on elective resections. As such, data assessing non-elective laparoscopic colectomies are limited. Our goal was to evaluate the current usage and outcomes of laparoscopic in the urgent and emergent setting in the USA. METHODS: A national inpatient database was reviewed from 2008 to 2011 for right, left, and sigmoid colectomies in the non-elective setting. Cases were stratified by approach into open or laparoscopic groups. Demographics, perioperative clinical variables, and financial outcomes were compared across each group. RESULTS: A total of 22,719 non-elective colectomies were analyzed. The vast majority (95.8 %) was open. Most cases were performed in an urban setting at non-teaching hospitals by general surgeons. Colorectal surgeons were significantly more likely to perform a case laparoscopic than general surgeons (p < 0.001). Demographics were similar between open and laparoscopic groups; however, the disease distribution by approach varied, with significantly more severe cases in the open colectomy arm (p < 0.001). Cases performed laparoscopically had significantly better mortality and complication rates. Laparoscopic cases also had significantly improved outcomes, including shorter length of stay and hospital costs (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed less than 5 % of urgent and emergent colectomies in the USA are performed laparoscopically. Colorectal surgeons were more likely to approach a case laparoscopically than general surgeons. Outcomes following laparoscopic colectomy in this setting resulted in reduced length of stay, lower complication rates, and lower costs. Increased adoption of laparoscopy in the non-elective setting should be considered.

Outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic colectomy surgery in obese patients: a case-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS offers several patient-related benefits over multiport laparoscopy. However, its use in obese patients has been limited from concerns of technical difficulty, oncologic compromise, and higher complication and conversion rates. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of SILS for colectomy in obese patients. METHODS: Review of a prospective database identified patients undergoing elective colectomy using SILS from 2009 to 2014. They were stratified into obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)) and then matched on patient characteristics, diagnosis, and operative procedure. Demographic and perioperative outcome data were evaluated. The primary outcome measures were operative time, length of stay (LOS), and conversion, complication, and readmission rates for each cohort. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients were evaluated-80 in each cohort. Patients were well matched in demographics, diagnosis, and procedure variables. The obese cohort had significantly higher BMI (p < 0.001) and ASA scores (p = 0.035). Operative time (176.9 ± 64.0 vs. 144.4 ± 47.2 min, p < 0.001) and estimated blood loss (89.0 ± 139.5 vs. 51.6 ± 38.0 ml, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the obese. There were no significant differences in conversion rates (p = 0.682), final incision length (p = 0.088), LOS (p = 0.332), postoperative complications (p = 0.430), or readmissions (p = 1.000) in the obese versus non-obese. Further, in malignant cases, lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.757) and negative distal margins (p = 1.000) were comparable across cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients had significantly longer operative times, but comparable conversion rates, oncologic outcomes, lengths of stay, complication, and readmission rates as the non-obese cohorts. In the obese, where higher morbidity rates are typically associated with surgical outcomes, SILS may be the ideal platform to optimize outcomes in colorectal surgery. With additional operative time, the obese can realize the same clinical and quality benefits of minimally invasive surgery as the non-obese.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Colon and Rectal Surgery.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was introduced to further the enhanced outcomes of multiport laparoscopy. Multiple studies have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of SILS for both benign and malignant colorectal disease. SILS provides the potential for improved cosmesis, postoperative outcomes, and patient quality of life. However, widespread use has been limited by technical demands and lack of an evidence and competency-based curriculum.