Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 2207–2216 | Cite as

Evaluating quality across minimally invasive platforms in colorectal surgery

  • Deborah S. Keller
  • Juan R. Flores-Gonzalez
  • Sergio Ibarra
  • Nisreen Madhoun
  • Reena Tahilramani
  • Ali Mahmood
  • Eric M. Haas
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Minimally invasive surgery Robotic surgery Laparoscopic surgery Colorectal surgery Surgical outcomes 

References

  1. 1.
    Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer NJ (2004) Measuring the quality of surgical care: structure, process, or outcomes? J Am Coll Surg 198:626–632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Almoudaris AM, Clark S, Vincent C, Faiz O (2011) Establishing quality in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 13:961–973CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bilimoria KY, Cohen ME, Merkow RP et al (2010) Comparison of outlier identification methods in hospital surgical quality improvement programs. J Gastrointest Surg 14:1600–1607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flum DR, Pellegrini CA (2012) The business of quality in surgery. Ann Surg 255:6–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keller DS, Chien HL, Hashemi L, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP (2014) The HARM score: a novel, easy measure to evaluate quality and outcomes in colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 259:1119–1125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Readmissions Reduction Program (2012). http://cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/Readmissions-Reduction-Program.html. Accessed Mar 2015
  7. 7.
    Medicare.gov Hospital Compare. http://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/search.html. Accessed Dec 2014
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Kelly KN, Iannuzzi JC, Rickles AS, Monson JR, Fleming FJ (2014) Risk factors associated with 30-day postoperative readmissions in major gastrointestinal resections. J Gastrointest Surg 18(1):35–43; discussion 43–44 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bailey MB, Davenport DL, Vargas HD, Evers BM, McKenzie SP (2014) Longer operative time: deterioration of clinical outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 57:616–622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Collins TC, Daley J, Henderson WH, Khuri SF (1999) Risk factors for prolonged length of stay after major elective surgery. Ann Surg 230:251–259CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kurmann A, Vorburger SA, Candinas D, Beldi G (2011) Operation time and body mass index are significant risk factors for surgical site infection in laparoscopic sigmoid resection: a multicenter study. Surg Endosc 25:3531–3534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Procter LD, Davenport DL, Bernard AC, Zwischenberger JB (2010) General surgical operative duration is associated with increased risk-adjusted infectious complication rates and length of hospital stay. J Am Coll Surg 210:60-5.e1–60-5.e2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keller DS, Bankwitz B, Woconish D et al (2014) Predicting who will fail early discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an established enhanced recovery pathway. Surg Endosc 28:74–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Evans C, Lim J, Gatzen C, Huang A (2012) Factors influencing laparoscopic colorectal operative duration and its effect on clinical outcome. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22:437–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nelson H, Sargent DJ, COST Study Group (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bonjer HJ, Hop WC, Nelson H et al (2007) Laparoscopically assisted vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg 142:298–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Delaney CP, Chang E, Senagore AJ, Broder M (2008) Clinical outcomes and resource utilization associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy using a large national database. Ann Surg 247:819–824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kennedy GD, Heise C, Rajamanickam V, Harms B, Foley EF (2009) Laparoscopy decreases postoperative complication rates after abdominal colectomy: results from the national surgical quality improvement program. Ann Surg 249:596–601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lacy AM, Delgado S, Castells A et al (2008) The long-term results of a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopy-assisted versus open surgery for colon cancer. Ann Surg 248:1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, Muller JM (2005) Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003145.pub2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC et al (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boutros M, Hippalgaonkar N, Silva E, Allende D, Wexner SD, Berho M (2013) Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer results in higher lymph node yield and better short-term outcomes than open surgery: a large single-center comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 56:679–688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Braga M, Frasson M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, Capretti G, Di Carlo V (2007) Laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer patients: outcome and cost-benefit analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 50:464–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen HH, Wexner SD, Weiss EG et al (1998) Laparoscopic colectomy for benign colorectal disease is associated with a significant reduction in disability as compared with laparotomy. Surg Endosc 12:1397–1400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shapiro SB, Lambert PJ, Mathiason MA (2008) A comparison of open and laparoscopic techniques in elective resection for diverticular disease. Wis Med J 107:287–291Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sklow B, Read T, Birnbaum E, Fry R, Fleshman J (2003) Age and type of procedure influence the choice of patients for laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 17:923–929CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Salloum RM, Bulter DC, Schwartz SI (2006) Economic evaluation of minimally invasive colectomy. J Am Coll Surg 202:269–274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Biondi A, Grosso G, Mistretta A et al (2013) Laparoscopic vs. open approach for colorectal cancer: evolution over time of minimal invasive surgery. BMC Surg 13(Suppl 2):S12CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V et al (2004) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 47:2162–2168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Keller DS, Senagore AJ, Lawrence JK, Champagne BJ, Delaney CP (2014) Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 28(1):212–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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
  33. 33.
    Champagne BJ, Papaconstantinou HT, Parmar SS et al (2012) Single-incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a multicenter, case-controlled comparison. Ann Surg 255:66–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fung AK, Aly EH (2012) Systematic review of single-incision laparoscopic colonic surgery. Br J Surg 99:1353–1364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G et al (2012) Standard laparoscopic versus single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: early results of a randomized prospective study. Am J Surg 204:115–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Makino T, Milsom JW, Lee SW (2012) Feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: a systematic review. Ann Surg 255:667–676CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Trastulli S, Farinella E, Cirocchi R et al (2012) Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome. Colorectal Dis 14:e134–e156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cevasco M, Ashley SW (2011) Quality measurement and improvement in general surgery. Perm J 15:48–53CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kassin MT, Owen RM, Perez SD et al (2012) Risk factors for 30-day hospital readmission among general surgery patients. J Am Coll Surg 215:322–330CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Morris AM, Baldwin LM, Matthews B et al (2007) Reoperation as a quality indicator in colorectal surgery: a population-based analysis. Ann Surg 245:73–79CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Delaney CP (2008) Outcome of discharge within 24–72 hours after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 51:181–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Delaney CP, Brady K, Woconish D, Parmar SP, Champagne BJ (2012) Towards optimizing perioperative colorectal care: outcomes for 1,000 consecutive laparoscopic colon procedures using enhanced recovery pathways. Am J Surg. 203:353–355; discussion 355–356 Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kariv Y, Wang W, Senagore AJ, Hammel JP, Fazio VW, Delaney CP (2006) Multivariable analysis of factors associated with hospital readmission after intestinal surgery. Am J Surg 191:364–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kalish RL, Daley J, Duncan CC, Davis RB, Coffman GA, Iezzoni LI (1995) Costs of potential complications of care for major surgery patients. Am J Med Qual 10:48–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wick EC, Shore AD, Hirose K et al (2011) Readmission rates and cost following colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 54:1475–1479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Keller DS, Park KJ, Augestad KM, Delaney CP (2014) Integration of open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer resection: oncologic and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 28:2129–2136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Baek SJ, Kim CH, Cho MS et al (2015) Robotic surgery for rectal cancer can overcome difficulties associated with pelvic anatomy. Surg Endosc 29(6):1419–1424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Memon S, Heriot AG, Murphy DG, Bressel M, Lynch AC (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 19:2095–2101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yang Y, Wang F, Zhang P et al (2012) Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, focusing on rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 19(12):3727–3736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Keller DS, Bankwitz B, Nobel T, Delaney CP (2014) Using frailty to predict who will fail early discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an established recovery pathway. Dis Colon Rectum 57:337–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Manilich E, Vogel JD, Kiran RP, Church JM, Seyidova-Khoshknabi D, Remzi FH (2013) Key factors associated with postoperative complications in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 56:64–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Azimuddin K, Rosen L, Reed JF III, Stasik JJ, Riether RD, Khubchandani IT (2001) Readmissions after colorectal surgery cannot be predicted. Dis Colon Rectum 44:942–946CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lee SW, Milsom JW, Nash GM (2011) Single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic right and hand-assisted left colectomy: a case-matched comparison. Dis Colon Rectum 54:1355–1361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Khayat A, Maggiori L, Vicaut E, Ferron M, Panis Y (2015) Does single port improve results of laparoscopic colorectal surgery? A propensity score adjustment analysis. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4063-7 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    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
  56. 56.
    Dimick JB, Staiger DO, Hall BL, Ko CY, Birkmeyer JD (2013) Composite measures for profiling hospitals on surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 257:67–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah S. Keller
    • 1
  • Juan R. Flores-Gonzalez
    • 1
  • Sergio Ibarra
    • 1
  • Nisreen Madhoun
    • 1
  • Reena Tahilramani
    • 1
    • 3
  • Ali Mahmood
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Eric M. Haas
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Colorectal Surgical AssociatesHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Houston Methodist HospitalHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Minimally Invasive Colon and Rectal SurgeryThe University of Texas Medical School at HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations