Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Halabi WJ, Kang CY, Jafari MD, Nguyen VQ, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A (2013) Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World J Surg 37:2782–2790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V, Trevisan P, Sovernigo G, Orsini C, Guidolin D (2004) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 47:2162–2168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rawlings AL, Woodland JH, Vegunta RK, Crawford DL (2007) Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 21:1701–1708

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Spinoglio G, Summa M, Priora F, Quarati R, Testa S (2008) Robotic colorectal surgery: first 50 cases experience. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1627–1632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A, Spaziani A, Biancafarina A, Casciola L (2009) Short- and medium-term outcome of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic rectal resection. JSLS 13:176–183

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Baik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS, Hur H, Sohn SK, Cho CH, Kim H (2009) Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1480–1487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Marecik SJ, Blumetti J, Park JJ, Zimmern A, Abcarian H (2010) Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the potential advantage of robotic assistance. Dis Colon Rectum 53:1611–1617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bianchi PP, Ceriani C, Locatelli A, Spinoglio G, Zampino MG, Sonzogni A, Crosta C, Andreoni B (2010) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of oncological safety and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 24:2888–2894

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim NK, Kang J (2010) Optimal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the role of robotic surgery from an expert’s view. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 26:377–387

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH (2010) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer: case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 17:3195–3202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Baek JH, Pastor C, Pigazzi A (2011) Robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc 25:521–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kwak JM, Kim SH, Kim J, Son DN, Baek SJ, Cho JS (2011) Robotic vs laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcomes of a case-control study. Dis Colon Rectum 54:151–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Patel CB, Ragupathi M, Ramos-Valadez DI, Haas EM (2011) A three-arm (laparoscopic, hand-assisted, and robotic) matched-case analysis of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 54:144–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. D’Annibale A, Pernazza G, Monsellato I, Pende V, Lucandri G, Mazzocchi P, Alfano G (2013) Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 27:1887–1895

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fernandez R, Anaya DA, Li LT, Orcutt ST, Balentine CJ, Awad SA, Berger DH, Albo DA, Artinyan A (2013) Laparoscopic versus robotic rectal resection for rectal cancer in a veteran population. Am J Surg 206:509–517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Saklani AP, Lim DR, Hur H, Min BS, Baik SH, Lee KY, Kim NK (2013) Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of oncologic outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:1689–1698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Keller DS, Senagore AJ, Lawrence JK, Lawrence JK, Champagne BJ, Delaney CP (2014) Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 28:212–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuo LJ, Lin YK, Chang CC, Tai CJ, Chiou JF, Chang YJ (2014) Clinical outcomes of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopy and multifactorial analysis of the learning curve for robotic surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 29:555–562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Buchs NC, Pugin F, Volonté Morel P (2014) Reliability of robotic system during general surgical procedures in a university hospital. Am J Surg 207:84–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Casillas MA, Leichtle SW, Wahl WL, Lampman RM, Welch KB, Wellock T, Madden EB, Cleary RK (2014) Improved perioperative and short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal operations. Am J Surg 208:33–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Waljee JF, Birkmeyer NJ (2014) Collaborative quality improvement in surgery. Hand Clin 30:335–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Faries D, Leon AC, Haro JM, Obenchain RL (2010) Analysis of observational health care data using SAS. SAS Institute Inc., Cary

    Google Scholar 

  24. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Stürmer T (2006) Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol 163:1149–1156

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM (2007) A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 26:734–753

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Liao G, Zhao Z, Lin S, Li R, Yuan Y, Du S, Chen J, Deng H (2014) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials. World J Surg Oncol 12:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Caputo D, Caricato M, LaVaccara V, Capolupo GT, Coppola R (2014) Conversion in mini-invasive colorectal surgery: the effect of timing on short term outcome. Int J Surg 12:805–809

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yang C, Wexner SD, Safar B, Jobanputra S, Jin H, Li VK, Nogueras JJ, Weiss EG, Sands DR (2009) Conversion in laparoscopic surgery: does intraoperative complications influence outcome? Surg Endosc 23:2454–2458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. The Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group (2004) A comparison of laparoscopic assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jayne DG, Thorpe HC, Copeland J, Quirke P, Brown JM, Guillou PJ (2010) Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 97:1638–1645

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F, Quirke P, Guillou P, Jayne DG, Brown JM (2013) Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 100:75–82

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM, MRC CLASICC trial group (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multi-centre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Chan AC, Poon JT, Fan JK, Lo SH, Law WL (2008) Impact of conversion on the long-term outcome in laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc 22:2625–2630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Li JC, Lee JF, Ng SS, Yiu RY, Hon SS, Leung WW, Leung KL (2010) Conversion in laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for right colon cancer: risk factors and clinical outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 25:983–988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. White I, Greenberg R, Itah R, Inbar R, Schneebaum S, Avital S (2011) Impact of conversion on short and long-term outcome in laparoscopic resection of curable colorectal cancer. JSLS 15:182–187

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim CW, Kim CH, Baik SH (2014) Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 18:816–830

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Park JS, Choi GS, Park SY, Kim HJ, Ryuk JP (2012) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg 99:1219–1226

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Salman M, Bell T, Martin J, Bhuva K, Grim R, Ahuja V (2013) Use, cost, complications, and mortality of robotic versus nonrobotic general surgery procedures based on a nationwide database. Am Surg 79:553–560

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tyler JA, Fox JP, Desai MM, Perry WB, Glasgow SC (2013) Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era. Dis Colon Rectum 56:458–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pigazzi A (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer (ROLARR). www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01736072

Download references

Disclosures

Dr. Michael S. Tam, Dr. Christodoulos Kaoutzanis, Andrew J. Mullard, Dr. Scott R. Regenbogen, Dr. Michael G. Franz, Dr. Samantha Hendren, Dr. Greta Krapohl, James F. Vandewarker, and Dr. Richard M. Lampman have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Dr. Cleary is an educational speaker and has received honoraria from Intuitive Surgical Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Saint Joseph Mercy Health System, 5333 McAuley Drive, Suite 2111, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106, USA

    Michael S. Tam, Christodoulos Kaoutzanis, Michael G. Franz, James F. Vandewarker, Richard M. Lampman & Robert K. Cleary

  2. Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Andrew J. Mullard & Greta Krapohl

  3. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Scott E. Regenbogen & Samantha Hendren

Authors
  1. Michael S. Tam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christodoulos Kaoutzanis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew J. Mullard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Scott E. Regenbogen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael G. Franz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Samantha Hendren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Greta Krapohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. James F. Vandewarker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Richard M. Lampman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Robert K. Cleary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert K. Cleary.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tam, M.S., Kaoutzanis, C., Mullard, A.J. et al. A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 30, 455–463 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4218-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4218-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation