Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The prevalence of laparoscopy and patient safety outcomes: an analysis of colorectal resections

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Although laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with faster postoperative recovery and shorter hospital stays than open surgery, perioperative patient safety analyses using process-focused, validated measures have yet to be performed.

Methods

This study analyzed the U.S. Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a 20 % weighted sample of inpatient hospital discharges, from 1998 to 2009. The study included patients who underwent open or laparoscopic colorectal resections and excluded those younger than 18 years and those who underwent emergent or multiple colorectal operations. The primary outcome measure was surgery-specific patient safety indicators (PSIs). Uni- and multivariate regression methods were used to estimate associations of surgery type with PSIs.

Results

A total of 2,936,641 patients were identified, and 177,547 (6 %) of these patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal resections. The laparoscopic patients were younger (p < 0.001) and more likely to be Caucasian (p = 0.005) and male (p < 0.001), to have lower Charlson scores (p < 0.001), and to undergo surgery in teaching hospitals (p < 0.001) located in urban areas (p < 0.001). The prevalence of laparoscopic surgery has increased rapidly in recent years, from 5 to 29 % of all colorectal procedures performed in 2007 and 2009, respectively. The prevalence of any PSI was lower in the laparoscopic group (4.2 vs. 8.3 %; p < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that the likelihood of any PSI for laparoscopic colorectal resection was 57 % lower than for open resections (odds ratio, 0.43; 95 % confidence interval, 0.40–0.46; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery was associated with a lower risk of adverse patient safety events, a difference that became more pronounced as the prevalence of laparoscopy increased. Future studies should focus on factors that promote the safe adoption of innovative surgical techniques and optimize surgical outcomes.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AHRQ:

Agency for healthcare research and quality

PSI:

Patient safety indicators

NIS:

Nationwide Inpatient Sample

HCUP:

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project

OR:

Odds ratio

DRG:

Diagnosis related group

CVCBSI:

Central venous catheter blood stream infection

PE:

Pulmonary embolus

DVT:

Deep venous thrombosis

References

  1. Gao C, Yang M, Xiao C, Wang G, Wu Y, Wang J, Li J (2012) Robotically assisted mitral valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 143:S64–S67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gumbs AA, Gayet B, Hoffman JP (2011) Video: laparoscopic Whipple procedure with a two-layered pancreatojejunostomy. Surg Endosc 25:3446–3447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, Jeekel J, Kazemier G, Bonjer HJ, Haglind E, Pahlman L, Cuesta MA, Msika S, Morino M, Lacy AM (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ohtani H, Tamamori Y, Arimoto Y, Nishiguchi Y, Maeda K, Hirakawa K (2012) A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopy-assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. J Cancer 3:49–57

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM (2007) Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 25:3061–3068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2012) A decade of evidence, design, and implementation: advancing patient safety. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/patient-safety-resources/resources/advancing-patient-safety/index.html

  8. Romano PS, Geppert JJ, Davies S, Miller MR, Elixhauser A, McDonald KM (2003) A national profile of patient safety in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff Millwood 22:154–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. National Quality Forum. NQF-endorsed standards. National Quality Forum, Washington, DC. http://www.qualityforum.org/Measuring_Performance/Measuring_Performance.aspx. Accessed 30 Sept 2013

  10. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Hospital quality initiative. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD. http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HospitalQualityInits/index.html. Accessed 30 Sept 2013

  11. Mirheydar HS, Parsons JK (2013) Diffusion of robotics into clinical practice in the United States: process, patient safety, learning curves, and the public health. World J Urol 31(3):455–461

    Google Scholar 

  12. Parsons JK, Palazzi-Churas K, Stroup S, Chang DC (2012) Patient safety and the diffusion of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Urol 187:e24–e25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2007–2009) HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp

  14. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA (1992) Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 45:613–619

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thompson BS, Coory MD, Lumley JW (2011) National trends in the uptake of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer, 2000–2008. Med J Aust 194:443–447

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mamidanna R, Burns EM, Bottle A, Aylin P, Stonell C, Hanna GB, Faiz O (2012) Reduced risk of medical morbidity and mortality in patients selected for laparoscopic colorectal resection in England: a population-based study. Arch Surg 147:219–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Panis Y, Maggiori L, Caranhac G, Bretagnol F, Vicaut E (2011) Mortality after colorectal cancer surgery: a French survey of more than 84,000 patients. Ann Surg 254:738–743; discussion 743–734

    Google Scholar 

  18. Stroup SP, Palazzi KL, Chang DC, Ward NT, Parsons JK (2012) Inpatient safety trends in laparoscopic and open nephrectomy for renal tumours. BJU Int 110:1808–1813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Parsons JK, Palazzi K, Chang D, Stroup SP (2013) Patient safety and the diffusion of surgical innovations: a national analysis of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 27(5):1674–1680

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gladwell M (2000) The tipping point: how little things can make a big difference, 1st edn. Little, Brown and Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rhee D, Zhang Y, Papandria D, Ortega G, Abdullah F (2012) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality pediatric indicators as a quality metric for surgery in children: do they predict adverse outcomes? J Pediatr Surg 47:107–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rhee D, Zhang Y, Chang DC, Arnold MA, Salazar-Osuna JH, Chrouser K, Colombani PM, Abdullah F (2011) Population-based comparison of open vs laparoscopic esophagogastric fundoplication in children: application of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality pediatric quality indicators. J Pediatr Surg 46:648–654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hernandez-Boussard T, McDonald KM, Morton JM, Dalman RL, Bech FR (2012) Determinants of adverse events in vascular surgery. J Am Coll Surg 214:788–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Park IJ, Choi GS, Lim KH, Kang BM, Jun SH (2009) Multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 13:275–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Park IJ, Choi GS, Lim KH, Kang BM, Jun SH (2009) Multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: lessons from 1,000 cases of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 23:839–846

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Furst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC, Bonjer HJ (2013) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14:210–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kaafarani HM, Rosen AK (2009) Using administrative data to identify surgical adverse events: an introduction to the patient safety indicators. Am J Surg 198:S63–S68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kaafarani HM, Borzecki AM, Itani KM, Loveland S, Mull HJ, Hickson K, Macdonald S, Shin M, Rosen AK (2011) Validity of selected patient safety indicators: opportunities and concerns. J Am Coll Surg 212:924–934

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 complication influence outcome? Surg Endosc 23:2454–2458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kwon S, Billingham R, Farrokhi E, Florence M, Herzig D, Horvath K, Rogers T, Steele S, Symons R, Thirlby R, Whiteford M, Flum DR (2012) Adoption of laparoscopy for elective colorectal resection: a report from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. J Am Coll Surg 214(909–918):e901

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kang CY, Chaudhry OO, Halabi WJ, Nguyen V, Carmichael JC, Stamos MJ, Mills S (2012) Outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009. Am J Surg 204:952–957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kang CY, Halabi WJ, Luo R, Pigazzi A, Nguyen NT, Stamos MJ (2012) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a better look into the latest trends. Arch Surg 147:724–731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the members of the UCSD Surgical Outcomes Research Group for their assistance in the design and execution of this study.

Disclosures

Carrie Y. Peterson, Kerrin Palazzi, J. Kellogg Parsons, David C. Chang, and Sonia L. Ramamoorthy have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, 3855 Health Sciences Dr., Suite 2073, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA

    Carrie Y. Peterson, David C. Chang & Sonia L. Ramamoorthy

  2. Department of Urology, University of California, San Diego, 3855 Health Sciences Dr., La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA

    Kerrin Palazzi & J. Kellogg Parsons

Authors
  1. Carrie Y. Peterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kerrin Palazzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Kellogg Parsons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David C. Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sonia L. Ramamoorthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carrie Y. Peterson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peterson, C.Y., Palazzi, K., Parsons, J.K. et al. The prevalence of laparoscopy and patient safety outcomes: an analysis of colorectal resections. Surg Endosc 28, 608–616 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3216-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3216-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation