Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Minimally invasive colectomy is associated with reduced risk of anastomotic leak and other major perioperative complications and reduced hospital resource utilization as compared with open surgery: a retrospective population-based study of comparative effectiveness and trends of surgical approach

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

We used a population-based database to: (1) compare clinical and economic outcomes between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS) for colectomy; and (2) evaluate contemporary trends in MIS rates.

Methods

Retrospective Premier Healthcare Database review of patients undergoing elective inpatient colectomy between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2017 (first = index admission). Patients were classified into MIS (laparoscopic/robotic) or OS groups, and by left or right colectomy. Propensity score matching (1:1 ratio) of MIS and OS groups was used to address potential confounding from patient/hospital/provider characteristics. Study outcomes, measured during index admission, included major perioperative complications [anastomotic leak (AL), bleeding, infection, and a composite of infection/AL], operating room time (ORT), length of stay (LOS), and total hospital costs.

Results

Among 134,970 study-eligible patients, MIS rates increased from ~ 2% (2010) to 19–23% (2017), driven by a > tenfold increase in robotic surgery. The matched MIS and OS colectomy groups comprised 46,708 (left) and 44,560 (right) total patients. Risks of AL, bleeding, and infection were lower for MIS versus OS (all p < 0.001). In left: AL occurred in 7.9% of MIS versus 9.9% of OS; bleeding 7.8% versus 9.7%; infection 3.3% versus 5.8%; infection/AL 9.8% versus 13.3%. In right: AL 8.9% versus 11.1%; bleeding 9.8% versus 10.8%; infection 3.0% versus 5.1%; infection/AL 10.5% versus 10.4%. Although ORTs were longer with MIS (left: 240.8 vs. 216.2 min; right: 192.8 vs. 178.0 min), LOS was shorter (left: 5.4 vs. 7.1 days; right: 5.5 vs. 7.1 days), and total hospital costs were lower (left: $18,564 vs. $19,960; right: $17,375 vs. $19,417) versus OS (all p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Compared with OS, MIS was associated with significantly lower risk of major perioperative complications (including AL), lower LOS, and lower total hospital costs, despite longer OR times. MIS colectomy rates have increased over time; recent gains appear to be due to uptake of robotic 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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Armijo PR, Pagkratis S, Boilesen E, Tanner T, Oleynikov D (2018) Growth in robotic-assisted procedures is from conversion of laparoscopic procedures and not from open surgeons’ conversion: a study of trends and costs. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5908-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee MG, Chiu CC, Wang CC, Chang CN, Lee SH, Lee M, Hsu TC, Lee CC (2017) Trends and outcomes of surgical treatment for colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2012—an analysis using National Inpatient Database. Sci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02224-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Yeo HL, Isaacs AJ, Abelson JS, Milsom JW, Sedrakyan A (2016) Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomies using a large national database: outcomes and trends related to surgery center volume. Dis Colon Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0000000000000580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yeo H, Niland J, Milne D, ter Veer A, Bekaii-Saab T, Farma JM, Lai L, Skibber JM, Small W Jr, Wilkinson N, Schrag D, Weiser MR (2015) Incidence of minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery at National Comprehensive Cancer Network Centers. JNCI. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Hanna MH, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A, Stamos MJ, Mills S (2015) Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for total abdominal colectomy. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4552-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Tsui C, Klein R, Garabrant M (2013) Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2973-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Julien M, Dove J, Quindlen K, Halm K, Shabahang M, Wild J, Blansfield J (2016) Evolution of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: the impact of the Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Group Trial. Am Surg 82:685–691

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ilyas MI, Zangbar B, Nfonsam VN, Maegawa FA, Joseph BA, Patel JA, Wexner SD (2017) Are there differences in outcome after elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease and for cancer? A national inpatient study. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Scarborough JE, Schumacher J, Kent KC, Heise CP, Greenberg CC (2017) Associations of specific postoperative complications with outcomes after elective colon resection: a procedure-targeted approach toward surgical quality improvement. JAMA Surg 152:e164681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Premier Healthcare Database White Paper: Data that informs and performs (2018) Premier Applied Sciences, Premier Inc. https://www.premierinc.com/transforming-healthcare/healthcareperformance-improvement/premier-applied-sciences/

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Farrokhyar F, Karanicolas PJ, Thoma A, Simunovic M, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Anvari M, Adili A, Guyatt G (2010) Randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181cf863d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Montori VM, Guyatt GH (2001) Intention-to-treat principle. CMAJ 2001(165):1339–1341

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fergusson D, Aaron SD, Guyatt G (2002) Hébert P (2002) Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis. BMJ 325:652–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. McLeod RS, Wright JG, Solomon MJ, Hu X, Walters BC (1996) Lossing Al (1996) Randomized controlled trials in surgery: issues and problems. Surgery 119:483–486

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, Saunders LD, Beck CA, Feasby TE (2005) Ghali WA (2005) Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 43(11):1130–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kang CY, Halabi WJ, Chaudhry OO, Nguyen V, Pigazzi A, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ (2013) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer. JAMA Surg 148:65–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Austin PC (2011) An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Muller CJ, MacLehose RF (2014) Estimating predicted probabilities from logistic regression: different methods correspond to different target populations. Int J Epidemiol. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu029

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Fugang W, Zhaopeng Y, Meng Z, Maomin S (2017) Long-term outcomes of laparoscopy vs. open surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients: a meta-analysis. Mol Clin Oncol. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2017.1419

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Healy MA, Regenbogen SE, Kanters AE, Suwanabol PA, Varban OA, Campbell DA Jr, Dimick JB, Byrn JC (2017) Surgeon variation in complications with minimally invasive and open colectomy: results from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative. JAMA Surg 152:860–867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Keller DS, Senagore AJ, Fitch K, Bochner A, Haas EM (2017) A new perspective on the value of minimally invasive colorectal surgery-payer, provider, and patient benefits. Surg Endosc 31:2846–2853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim RH, Kavanaugh MM, Caldito GC (2017) Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: Improved compliance with guidelines for chemotherapy and survival. Surgery 45:78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mungo B, Papageorge CM, Stem M, Molena D, Lidor AO (2017) The impact of operative approach on postoperative complications following colectomy for colon caner. World J Surg 41(8):2143–2152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sheetz KH, Norton EC, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2017) Provider experience and the comparative safety of laparoscopic and open colectomy. Health Serv Res. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sood A, Meyer CP, Abdollah F, Sammon JD, Sun M, Lipsitz SR, Hollis M, Weissman JS, Menon M, Trinh QD (2017) Minimally invasive surgery and its impact on 30-day postoperative complications, unplanned readmissions and mortality. Br J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yamaguchi S, Tashiro J, Araki R, Okuda J, Hanai T, Otsuka K, Saito S, Watanabe M, Sugihara K (2017) Laparoscopic versus open resection for transverse and descending colon cancer: Short-term and long-term outcomes of a multicenter retrospective study of 1830 patients. Asian J Endosc Surg. https://doi.org/10.1111/ases.12373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hollis RH, Cannon JA, Singletary BA, Korb ML, Hawn MT, Heslin MJ (2016) understanding the value of both laparoscopic and robotic approaches compared to the open approach in colorectal surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 26(11):850–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Liao CH, Tan EC, Chen CC, Yang MC (2017) Real-world cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy versus open colectomy for colon cancer: a nationwide population-based study. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5176-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Hanna MH, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A, Stamos MJ, Mills S (2015) Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for total abdominal colectomy. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4552-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Murray AC, Chiuzan C, Kiran RP (2016) Risk of anastomotic leak after laparoscopic versus open colectomy. Surg Endosc 30:5275–5282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Papageorge CM, Zhao Q, Foley EF, Harms BA, Heise CP, Carchman EH, Kennedy GD (2016) Short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open colectomy for colon cancer. J Surg Res 204:83–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yeo HL, Isaacs AJ, Abelson JS, Milsom JW, Sedrakyan A (2016) Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomies using a large national database: outcomes and trends related to surgery center volume. Dis Colon Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0000000000000580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hammond J, Lim S, Wan Y, Gao X, Patkar A (2014) The burden of gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks: an evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg 45:78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-014-2506-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Turrentine FE, Denlinger CE, Simpson VB, Garwood RA, Guerlain S, Agrawal A, Friel CM, LaPar DJ, Stukenborg GJ, Jones RS (2015) Morbidity, mortality, cost, and survival estimates of gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks. J Am Coll Surg 45:78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sheetz KH, Norton EC, Regenbogen SE, Dimick JB (2017) An instrumental variable analysis comparing medicare expenditures for laparoscopic vs open colectomy. JAMA Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.1578

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Mehta HB, Hughes BD, Sieloff E, Sura SO, Shan Y, Adhikari D, Senagore A (2018) Outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy in younger and older patients: an analysis of Nationwide Readmission Database. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2017.0521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Fitch K, Bochner A, Keller DS (2017) Cost comparison of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy in colon cancer. Curr Med Res Opin 45:78. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2017.1310719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Laudicella M, Walsh B, Munasinghe A, Faiz O (2016) Impact of laparoscopic versus open surgery on hospital costs for colon cancer: a population-based retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012977

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Cost-to-Charge Ratio Files. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). June 2018. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/state/costtocharge.jsp

  41. Lawson EH, Louie R, Zingmond DS, Brook RH, Hall BL, Han L, Rapp M, Ko CY (2012) A comparison of clinical registry versus administrative claims data for reporting of 30-day surgical complications. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31826b4c4f

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Romano PS, Schembri ME (2002) Rainwater JA (2002) Can administrative data be used to ascertain clinically significant postoperative complications? Am J Med Qual 17(4):145–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge editorial support by Melissa Lingohr-Smith, PhD and Jay Lin, PhD from Novosys Health, and data analytic support by Bidusee Ray from Mu Sigma.

Disclosure

David Wei, Stephen Johnston, Laura Goldstein, and Deborah Nagle are employed by Johnson & Johnson and are stockholders of Johnson & Johnson.

Funding

This work was funded by Ethicon Inc, a Johnson & Johnson Company.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Epidemiology, Medical Devices, Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    David Wei & Stephen Johnston

  2. Franchise Health Economics and Market Access, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA

    Laura Goldstein

  3. Digital Surgery, Global Medical Affairs, Johnson & Johnson, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Deborah Nagle

Authors
  1. David Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen Johnston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laura Goldstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deborah Nagle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah Nagle.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 59 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wei, D., Johnston, S., Goldstein, L. et al. Minimally invasive colectomy is associated with reduced risk of anastomotic leak and other major perioperative complications and reduced hospital resource utilization as compared with open surgery: a retrospective population-based study of comparative effectiveness and trends of surgical approach. Surg Endosc 34, 610–621 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06805-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06805-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation