Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 455–463 | Cite as

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

  • Michael S. Tam
  • Christodoulos Kaoutzanis
  • Andrew J. Mullard
  • Scott E. Regenbogen
  • Michael G. Franz
  • Samantha Hendren
  • Greta Krapohl
  • James F. Vandewarker
  • Richard M. Lampman
  • Robert K. Cleary
Article

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.

Keywords

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery Hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery Robotic colorectal surgery Conversion rates Complication rates Length of hospital stay 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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 37:2782–2790CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 47:2162–2168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rawlings AL, Woodland JH, Vegunta RK, Crawford DL (2007) Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 21:1701–1708CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spinoglio G, Summa M, Priora F, Quarati R, Testa S (2008) Robotic colorectal surgery: first 50 cases experience. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1627–1632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 13:176–183PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 16:1480–1487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 53:1611–1617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 24:2888–2894CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 26:377–387PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 17:3195–3202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baek JH, Pastor C, Pigazzi A (2011) Robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc 25:521–525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 54:151–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 54:144–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 27:1887–1895CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 206:509–517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 28:1689–1698CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 28:212–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 29:555–562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buchs NC, Pugin F, Volonté Morel P (2014) Reliability of robotic system during general surgical procedures in a university hospital. Am J Surg 207:84–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 208:33–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Waljee JF, Birkmeyer NJ (2014) Collaborative quality improvement in surgery. Hand Clin 30:335–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Faries D, Leon AC, Haro JM, Obenchain RL (2010) Analysis of observational health care data using SAS. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Stürmer T (2006) Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol 163:1149–1156PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 26:734–753CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 12:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 12:805–809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 23:2454–2458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 350:2050–2059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 97:1638–1645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 100:75–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 365:1718–1726CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 22:2625–2630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 25:983–988CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 15:182–187PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 18:816–830CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 99:1219–1226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 79:553–560PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 56:458–466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pigazzi A (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer (ROLARR). www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01736072

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael S. Tam
    • 1
  • Christodoulos Kaoutzanis
    • 1
  • Andrew J. Mullard
    • 2
  • Scott E. Regenbogen
    • 3
  • Michael G. Franz
    • 1
  • Samantha Hendren
    • 3
  • Greta Krapohl
    • 2
  • James F. Vandewarker
    • 1
  • Richard M. Lampman
    • 1
  • Robert K. Cleary
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of SurgerySaint Joseph Mercy Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Michigan Surgical Quality CollaborativeUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations