Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 598–609 | Cite as

Incidence, associated risk factors, and impact of conversion to laparotomy in elective minimally invasive sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease

  • Amir L. BastawrousEmail author
  • Ron G. Landmann
  • Yuki Liu
  • Emelline Liu
  • Robert K. Cleary
Article

Abstract

Background

Benefits of minimally invasive surgical approaches to diverticular disease are limited by conversion to open surgery. A comprehensive analysis that includes risk factors for conversion may improve patient outcomes.

Methods

The US Premier Healthcare Database was used to identify patients undergoing primary elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease between 2013 and September 2015. Propensity-score matching was used to compare conversion rates for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy. Patient, clinical, hospital, and surgeon characteristics associated with conversion were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression, providing odds ratios for comparative risks. Clinical and economic impacts were assessed comparing surgical outcomes in minimally invasive converted, completed, and open cases.

Results

The study population included 13,240 sigmoidectomy patients (8076 laparoscopic, 1301 robotic-assisted, 3863 open). Analysis of propensity-score-matched patients showed higher conversion rates in laparoscopic (13.6%) versus robotic-assisted (8.3%) surgeries (p < 0.001). Greater risk of conversion was associated with patients who were Black compared with Caucasian, were Medicaid-insured versus Commercially insured, had a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 2 versus 0, were obese, had concomitant colon resection, had peritoneal abscess or fistula, or had lysis of adhesions. Significantly lower risk of conversion was associated with robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy (versus laparoscopic, OR 0.58), hand-assisted surgery, higher surgeon volume, and surgeons who were colorectal specialties. Converted cases had longer operating room time, length of stay, and more postoperative complications compared with minimally invasive completed and open cases. Readmission and blood transfusion rates were higher in converted compared with minimally invasive completed cases, and similar to open surgeries. Differences in inflation-adjusted total ($4971), direct ($2760), and overhead ($2212) costs were significantly higher for converted compared with minimally invasive completed cases.

Conclusions

Conversion from minimally invasive to open sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease results in additional morbidity and healthcare costs. Consideration of modifiable risk factors for conversion may attenuate adverse associated outcomes.

Keywords

Diverticulitis Sigmoidectomy Robotic-assisted surgery Laparoscopic surgery Colon resection Conversion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Helen B. Hubert, PhD, consulting epidemiologist, for her assistance with manuscript preparation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Dr. Amir Bastawrous has received honoraria for courses, lectures, and proctoring from Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Dr. Robert Cleary has received honoraria for courses and lectures from Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Dr. Ron Landmann has received honoraria for teaching from Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Yuki Liu is a Health Economist and Data Scientist at Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Emelline Liu is the Director of Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research at Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

Supplementary material

464_2019_6804_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)
464_2019_6804_MOESM2_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 13 kb)
464_2019_6804_MOESM3_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Feuerstein JD, Falchuk KR (2016) Diverticulosis and diverticulitis. Mayo Clin Proc 91(8):1094–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Arendonk KJ, Tymitz KM, Gearhart SL, Stem M, Lidor AO (2013) Outcomes and costs of elective surgery for diverticular disease: a comparison with other diseases requiring colectomy. JAMA Surg 148(4):316–321.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2013.1010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wu KL, Lee KC, Liu CC, Chen HH, Lu CC (2017) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for diverticulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Surg 34(3):203–215.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000450683Epub 2016 Dec 10 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keller DS, Delaney CP, Hashemi L, Haas EM (2016) A national evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes in open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 30(10):4220–4228.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4732-6Epub 2015 Dec 29 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaertner WB, Kwaan MR, Madoff RD, Willis D, Belzer GE, Rothenberger DA, Melton GB (2013) The evolving role of laparoscopy in colonic diverticular disease: a systematic review. World J Surg 37(3):629–638.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1872-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siddiqui MRS, Sajid MS, Qureshi S, Cheek E, Baig MK (2010) Elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease has fewer complications than conventional surgery: a meta-analysis. Am J Surg 200:144–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kakarla VR, Nurkin SJ, Sharma S, Ruiz DE, Tiszenkel H (2012) Elective laparoscopic versus open colectomy for diverticulosis: an analysis of ACS-NSQIP database. Surg Endosc 26:1837–1842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guller U, Jain N, Hervey S, Purves H, Pietrobon R (2003) Laparoscopic vs open colectomy. Outcomes comparison based on large nationwide databases. Arch Surg 138:1179–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Masoomi H, Buchberg B, Nguyen B, Tung V, Stamos MJ, Mills S (2011) Outcomes of laparoscopic versus open colectomy in elective surgery for diverticulitis. World J Surg 35(9):2143–2148.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-011-1117-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) Collaborative (2012) Adoption of laparoscopy for elective colorectal resection: a report from the surgical care and outcomes assessment program. J Am Coll Surg 214:909–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elgazwi KE, Baca I, Grzybowski L, Jaacks A (2010) Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis: a prospective study. JSLS 14:469–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhakta A, Tafen M, Glotzer O, Canete J, Chismark AD, Valerian BT, Stain SC, Lee EC (2016) Laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for complicated diverticulitis is safe: review of 576 consecutive colectomies. Surg Endosc 30(4):1629–1634.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4393-5Epub 2015 Aug 15 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Masoomi H, Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Mills S, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A, Stamos MJ (2015) Risk factors for conversion of laparoscopic colorectal surgery to open surgery: does conversion worsen outcome? World J Surg 39(5):1240–1247.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-2958-z.10.1007/s00268-015-2958-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Silva-Velazco J, Stocchi L, Costedio M, Gorgun E, Kessler H, Remzi FH (2016) Is there anything we can modify among factors associated with morbidity following elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis? Surg Endosc 30:3541–3551.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4651-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Takano S, Reategui C, da Silva G, Maron DJ, Wexner SD, Weiss EG (2013) Surgical outcomes and their relation to the number of prior episodes of diverticulitis. Gastroenterology Report 1:64–69.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/got017 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rizzuto A, Lacamera U, Zittel FU, Sacco R (2015) Single incision laparoscopic resection for diverticulitis. Int J Surg 19:11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cleary RK, Mullard AJ, Ferraro J (2018) Regenbogen SE (2017) The cost of conversion in robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 32:1515–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Le Moine MC, Fabre JM, Vacher C, Navarro F, Picot MC, Domergue J (2003) Factors and consequences of conversion in laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease. Br J Surg 90:232–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    In: Whitepapers - Premier Healthcare Database Whitepaper. https://learn.premierinc.com/i/790965-premier-healthcare-database-whitepaper/0. Accessed 27 Dec 2017
  20. 20.
    Becker C (2003) Time to pay for quality. CMS will partner with premier in trial project to give financial bonuses to hospitals that deliver the best care. Mod Healthc 33(26):6–7, 16, 11Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Makadia R, Ryan PB (2014) Transforming the Premier Perspective® hospital database into the observational medical outcomes partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model. eGEMs 2(1)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu Y-S, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309:689.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.186 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invas Gynecol 17(6):730–738.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2010.06.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, Mackenzie C (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis 40:373–383.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Deyo R (1992) Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 45:613–619.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Livingston EH, Cao J (2010) Procedure volume as a predictor of surgical outcomes. JAMA 304:95.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.905 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hadley J, Yabroff KR, Barrett MJ, Penson DF, Saigal CS, Potosky AL (2010) Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments: evaluating statistical adjustments for confounding in observational data. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:1780–1793.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq393 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Alter DA, Gottlieb DJ, Vermeulen MJ (2007) Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias. JAMA 297:278.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.297.3.278 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hemmila MR (2010) Introduction to propensity scores. Arch Surg 145:939.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2010.193 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bhama AR, Charlton ME, Schmitt MB, Cromwell JW, Byrn JC (2015) factors associated with conversion from laparoscopic to open colectomy using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Colorectal Dis 17(3):257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tam MS, Kaoutzanis C, Mullard AJ, Regenbogen SE, Franz MG, Hendren S, Krapohl G, Vandewarker JF, Lampman RM, Cleary RK (2016) A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 30:455–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bhama AR, Obias V, Welch KB, Vandewarker JF, Cleary RK (2016) A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons- National Surgical Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Surg Endosc 30:1576–1584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    The Colorectal Writing Group for the SCOAP-CERTAIN Collaborative (2015) The impact of delaying elective resection of diverticulitis on laparoscopic conversion rate. Am J Surg 209:913–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rotholtz NA, Montero M, Laporte M, Bun M, Lencinas S, Mezzadri N (2009) Patients with less than three episodes of diverticulitits may benefit from elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy. World J Surg 33:2444–2447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jones OM, Stevenson ARL, Clark D, Stitz RW, Lumley JW (2008) Laparoscopic resection for diverticular disease. Follow-up of 500 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 248:1092–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schwandner O, Farke S, Fischer F, Eckmann C, Schiedeck THK, Bruch HP (2004) Laparoscopic colectomy for recurrent and complicated diverticulitis: a prospective study of 396 patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg 389:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bouillot JL, Berthou JC, Champault G, Meyer C, Arnaud JP, Samama G, Collet D, Bressler P, Gainant A, Delaitre B (2002) Elective laparoscopic colonic resection for diverticular disease: results of a multicenter study in 179 patients. Surg Endosc 16(9):1320–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Masoomi H, Mills SD, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A, Nguyen NT, Stamos MJ (2014) Outcomes of conversion of laparoscopic colorectal surgery to open surgery. JSLS 18(4)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP (2005) Conversion rates in laparoscopic surgery: a predictive model with 1253 patients. Surg Endosc 19(1):47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee SW, Yoo J, Dujovny N, Sonoda T, Milsom JW (2006) Laparoscopic vs. hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum 49:464–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    De Magistris L, Azagra JS, Goergen M, De Blasi V, Arru L, Facy O (2013) Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy in moderate and severe diverticulitis: analysis of short-term outcomes in a continuous series of 121 patients. Surg Endosc 27:1766–1771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lee YF, Albright J, Akram WM, Wu J, Ferraro J, Cleary RK (2018) Unplanned robotic-assisted conversion to open colorectal surgery is associated with adverse outcomes. J Gastrointestinal Surg 22:1059–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Giglio MC, Celentano V, Tarquini R, Luglio G, De Palma GD, Bucci L (2015) Conversion during laparoscopic colorectal resections: a complication or a drawback? A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 30:1445–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N, Tilney H, Gudgeon M, Bianchi PP, Edlin R, Hulme C, Brown J (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318(16):1569–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Davis BR, Yoo AC, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2014) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colectomy: cost and clinical outcomes. JSLS 18:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swedish Medical CenterSwedish Cancer InstituteSeattleUSA
  2. 2.MD Anderson Cancer CenterBaptist HealthJacksonvilleUSA
  3. 3.Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Global Health Economics and Outcomes ResearchSunnyvaleUSA
  4. 4.St. Joseph Mercy HospitalAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations