Comparison of Risk Factors for Unplanned Conversion from Laparoscopic and Robotic to Open Colorectal Surgery Using the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) Database.

Robotic colorectal surgery has been shown to have lower rates of unplanned conversion to open surgery when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Risk factors associated with conversion from robotic to open colectomy and comparisons of the risk factors between robotic and laparoscopic approaches have not been previously reported. Patients who underwent elective laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries between July 1, 2012 and April 28, 2015, were identified in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative registry. Candidate covariates were identified, and hierarchical logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors for conversion. There were 4796 cases that met study inclusion criteria. Conversion was required in 18.2 % of laparoscopic and 7.7 % of robotic cases (p < 0.0001). Risk factors for conversion in the laparoscopic group included the following: moderate/severe adhesions, obesity, colorectal cancer, hypertension, rectal operations, urgent priority, and tobacco use. Risk factors for conversion in the robotic group included the following: severe adhesions, bleeding disorder, presence of cancer, cirrhosis, and use of statins. Higher surgeon volume was protective in both groups. Conversion rates are lower for robotic than for laparoscopic colorectal surgery with fewer predictors of conversion. Recognition of factors predicting conversion may allow surgeons to choose an operative approach that optimizes the benefits of the available technologies.

A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database.

BACKGROUND: Until randomized trials mature, large database analyses assist in determining the role of robotics in colorectal surgery. ACS NSQIP database coding now allows differentiation between laparoscopic (LC) and robotic (RC) colorectal procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare LC and RC outcomes by analyzing the ACS NSQIP database. METHODS: The ACS NSQIP database was queried to identify patients who had undergone RC and LC during 2013. Demographic characteristics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were identified. Using propensity score matching, abdominal and pelvic colorectal operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 11,477 cases were identified. In the abdomen, 7790 LC and 299 RC cases were identified, and 2057 LC and 331 RC cases were identified in the pelvis. There were significant differences in operative time, conversion to an open procedure in the pelvis, and hospital length of stay. RC operative times were significantly longer in both abdominal and pelvic cases. Conversion rates in the pelvis were less for RC when compared to LC--10.0 and 13.7%, respectively (p = 0.01). Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for RC abdominal cases than for LC abdominal cases (4.3 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001) and for RC pelvic cases when compared to LC pelvic cases (4.5 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, wound complications, anastomotic leak, sepsis/shock, or need for reoperation within 30 days. CONCLUSION: As the robotic platform continues to grow in colorectal surgery and as technical upgrades continue to advance, comparison of outcomes requires continuous reevaluation. This study demonstrated that robotic operations have longer operative times, decreased hospital length of stay, and decreased rates of conversion to open in the pelvis. These findings warrant continued evaluation of the role of minimally invasive technical upgrades in colorectal surgery.

A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Current data addressing the role of robotic surgery for the management of colorectal disease are primarily from single-institution and case-matched comparative studies as well as administrative database analyses. The purpose of this study was to compare minimally invasive surgery outcomes using a large regional protocol-driven database devoted to surgical quality, improvement in patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study from the prospectively collected Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative registry designed to compare outcomes of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and robotic colon and rectal operations between July 1, 2012 and October 7, 2014. We adjusted for differences in baseline covariates between cases with different surgical approaches using propensity score quintiles modeled on patient demographics, general health factors, diagnosis, and preoperative co-morbidities. The primary outcomes were conversion rates and hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes included operative time, and postoperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 2735 minimally invasive colorectal operations met inclusion criteria. Conversion rates were lower with robotic as compared to laparoscopic operations, and this was statistically significant for rectal resections (colon 9.0 vs. 16.9%, p < 0.06; rectum 7.8 vs. 21.2%, p < 0.001). The adjusted length of stay for robotic colon operations (4.00 days, 95% CI 3.63-4.40) was significantly shorter compared to laparoscopic (4.41 days, 95% CI 4.17-4.66; p = 0.04) and hand-assisted laparoscopic cases (4.44 days, 95% CI 4.13-4.78; p = 0.008). There were no significant differences in overall postoperative complications among groups. CONCLUSIONS: When compared to conventional laparoscopy, the robotic platform is associated with significantly fewer conversions to open for rectal operations, and significantly shorter length of hospital stay for colon operations, without increasing overall postoperative morbidity. These findings and the recent upgrades in minimally invasive technology warrant continued evaluation of the role of the robotic platform in colorectal surgery.

Newly implemented enhanced recovery pathway positively impacts hospital length of stay.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) are thought to improve surgical outcomes by standardizing perioperative patient care established in evidence-based literature. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of a colorectal surgery ERP on hospital length of stay (LOS) and other patient outcomes. METHODS: This is a comparative effectiveness study of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery 2 years prior (pre-ERP group) and 2 years after (ERP group) implementation of an ERP program. The primary outcome was hospital LOS. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, 30-day readmissions, and 30-day reoperations. Multivariable regression analyses were utilized to control for patient factors, general health factors, diagnosis, surgeon, colon versus rectal operations, and open versus minimally invasive operations-laparoscopic and robotic. An ERP checklist was developed to track adherence to components of the pathway. RESULTS: The study population included 1036 patients: 523 in the pre-ERP group and 513 in the ERP group. Unadjusted LOS was significantly shorter in the ERP group than the control pre-ERP group [3 (IQR 3.5) vs 5 days (IQR 4.6); p < 0.0001]. Multivariable regression analysis confirmed the reduction in LOS, controlling for age, colon/rectum procedure, open/laparoscopic/robotic approach, primary diagnosis, and alvimopan use. Postoperative outcomes were not significantly different between groups except for 30-day readmissions, which were unexpectedly higher in the ERP group (14.6 vs 8.7 %, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: A newly implemented ERP on a dedicated colorectal surgery service in an academic non-university hospital setting resulted in shorter hospital LOS, but increased readmissions, for patients undergoing elective open and minimally invasive colon and rectal surgery. Future multi-institutional studies are needed to understand the impact of ERP on postoperative complications and readmissions.

Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs: Do They Increase the Risk of Anastomotic Leaks Following Colorectal Operations?

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have become an important component of narcotic-sparing postoperative pain management protocols. However, conflicting evidence exists regarding the adverse association of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use with intestinal anastomotic healing in colorectal surgery. OBJECTIVE: This study compares patients receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on postoperative day 1 with patients who did not receive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with regard to the occurrence of anastomotic leaks. DESIGN: This is a retrospective study from a protocol-driven prospectively collected statewide database. A propensity score model was used to adjust for differences between the groups in patient demographics, characteristics, comorbidities, and laboratory values. SETTINGS: The multicenter data set used in this analysis represents a variety of academic and community hospitals within the state of Michigan from July 2012 through February 2014. PATIENTS: Nonpregnant patients over the age of 18 who underwent colon and rectal surgery with bowel anastomosis were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Occurrence of anastomotic leak, composite surgical site infection, sepsis, and death within 30 days of surgery were the primary outcomes measured. RESULTS: A total of 4360 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 1297 (29.7%) received nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and 3063 (70.3%) did not receive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in the proportion of cases with anastomotic leak (OR, 1.33; CI, 0.86-2.05; p = 0.20), composite surgical site infection (OR, 1.26; CI, 0.96-1.66; p = 0.09), or death within 30 days (OR, 0.58; CI, 0.28-1.19; p = 0.14). There was a significantly greater risk of sepsis for patients given nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs than for those patients not given nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (OR, 1.47; CI, 1.05-2.06; p = 0.03). LIMITATIONS: This is a nonrandomized study performed retrospectively, and it is based on data collected only within a subset of hospitals in the state of Michigan. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant increase in the proportion of patients with anastomotic leak was observed when prescribing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for analgesia in the early postoperative period for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Unexpectedly, there was an increased risk of sepsis that warrants further investigation (see video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A192, for a synopsis of this study).

Postoperative hyperglycemia and adverse outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal surgery: results from the Michigan surgical quality collaborative database.

PURPOSE: Our objective was to assess the relationship between high blood glucose levels (BG) in the early postoperative period and the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs), sepsis, and death following colorectal operations. METHODS: The Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative database was queried for colorectal operations from July 2012 to December 2013. Normoglycemic (BG < 180 mg/dL) and hyperglycemic (BG ≥ 180 mg/dL) groups were defined by using the highest BG within the first 72 h postoperatively. Outcomes of interest included the incidence of superficial, deep, and organ/space SSIs, sepsis, and death within 30 days. Initial unadjusted analysis was followed by propensity score matching and multiple logistic regression modeling after adjusting for significant predictors. Separate analyses were performed for previously diagnosed diabetic and non-diabetic patients. RESULTS: A total of 5145 cases met inclusion criteria, of which 1072 were diabetic. For diabetic patients, there was a marginally significant association between high BG and superficial SSI in the unadjusted analysis (OR = 1.75, p = 0.056), but not in the adjusted analysis (OR = 1.35, p = 0.39). There was no significant relationship between elevated BG and deep SSI, organ/space SSI, sepsis, or death among diabetic patients. For non-diabetic patients, there was a significant association between high BG and superficial SSI (OR = 1.53, p = 0.03), sepsis (OR = 1.61, p < 0.01), and death (OR = 2.26, p < 0.01), but not deep or organ/space SSI. CONCLUSIONS: Following colorectal operations, superficial SSI, sepsis, and death are associated with postoperative serum hyperglycemia in patients without diabetes, but not those with diabetes. Vigilant postoperative BG monitoring is critical for all patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Chlorhexidine with isopropyl alcohol versus iodine povacrylex with isopropyl alcohol and alcohol- versus nonalcohol-based skin preparations: the incidence of and readmissions for surgical site infections after colorectal operations.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality after colorectal operations. Preparation of the surgical site with antiseptic solutions is an essential part of wound infection prevention. To date, there is no universal consensus regarding which preparation is most efficacious. OBJECTIVE: This study compared 2.0% chlorhexidine with 70.0% isopropyl alcohol versus 0.7% iodine povacrylex with 74.0% isopropyl alcohol and alcohol-based versus nonalcohol-based skin preparations with regard to efficacy in preventing postoperative wound infections. DESIGN: This is a retrospective study from 2 prospectively collected statewide databases combined. A propensity score model was used to adjust for differences between the groups in patient demographics, characteristics, comorbidities, and laboratory values. SETTINGS: The multicenter data set used in this analysis represents a variety of academic and community hospitals within the state of Michigan from January 2010 through June 2012. PATIENTS: Patients over the age of 18 years who underwent clean-contaminated colorectal operations were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of superficial surgical site infections, any surgical site infection, any wound complication, and readmission within 30 days for surgical site infection were measured. RESULTS: When 2.0% chlorhexidine with 70.0% isopropyl alcohol (n = 425) and 0.7% iodine povacrylex with 74.0% isopropyl alcohol (n = 115) were compared, a total of 540 colorectal cases met inclusion criteria. When alcohol-based (n = 610) and nonalcohol-based (n = 177) skin preparations were compared, a total of 787 colorectal cases met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in the propensity-adjusted odds for having any of the 4 outcomes of interest when comparing 2.0% chlorhexidine with 70.0% isopropyl alcohol to 0.7% iodine povacrylex with 74.0% isopropyl alcohol and when comparing alcohol-based with nonalcohol-based skin preparations. LIMITATIONS: This was a nonrandomized study performed retrospectively based on data collected within the state of Michigan. CONCLUSIONS: The use of 2.0% chlorhexidine with 70.0% isopropyl alcohol versus 0.7% iodine povacrylex with 74.0% isopropyl alcohol or alcohol-based versus nonalcohol-based skin preparations does not significantly influence the incidence of surgical site infections or readmission within 30 days for surgical site infection after clean-contaminated colorectal operations.