Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating quality across minimally invasive platforms in colorectal surgery

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer NJ (2004) Measuring the quality of surgical care: structure, process, or outcomes? J Am Coll Surg 198:626–632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Almoudaris AM, Clark S, Vincent C, Faiz O (2011) Establishing quality in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 13:961–973

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bilimoria KY, Cohen ME, Merkow RP et al (2010) Comparison of outlier identification methods in hospital surgical quality improvement programs. J Gastrointest Surg 14:1600–1607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Flum DR, Pellegrini CA (2012) The business of quality in surgery. Ann Surg 255:6–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 259:1119–1125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Medicare.gov Hospital Compare. http://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/search.html. Accessed Dec 2014

  8. CMS.gov Physician Quality Reporting System. http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/PQRS/index.html?redirect=/PQRS/. Accessed Dec 2014

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 57:616–622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Collins TC, Daley J, Henderson WH, Khuri SF (1999) Risk factors for prolonged length of stay after major elective surgery. Ann Surg 230:251–259

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 25:3531–3534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.e2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 28:74–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 22:437–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nelson H, Sargent DJ, COST Study Group (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bonjer HJ, Hop WC, Nelson H et al (2007) Laparoscopically assisted vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg 142:298–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 247:819–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 249:596–601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 248:1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 6:477–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 56:679–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 50:464–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 12:1397–1400

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shapiro SB, Lambert PJ, Mathiason MA (2008) A comparison of open and laparoscopic techniques in elective resection for diverticular disease. Wis Med J 107:287–291

    Google Scholar 

  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 17:923–929

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Salloum RM, Bulter DC, Schwartz SI (2006) Economic evaluation of minimally invasive colectomy. J Am Coll Surg 202:269–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):S12

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V et al (2004) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 47:2162–2168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):212–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 18:816–830

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Champagne BJ, Papaconstantinou HT, Parmar SS et al (2012) Single-incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a multicenter, case-controlled comparison. Ann Surg 255:66–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fung AK, Aly EH (2012) Systematic review of single-incision laparoscopic colonic surgery. Br J Surg 99:1353–1364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 204:115–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Makino T, Milsom JW, Lee SW (2012) Feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: a systematic review. Ann Surg 255:667–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–e156

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cevasco M, Ashley SW (2011) Quality measurement and improvement in general surgery. Perm J 15:48–53

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 215:322–330

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Morris AM, Baldwin LM, Matthews B et al (2007) Reoperation as a quality indicator in colorectal surgery: a population-based analysis. Ann Surg 245:73–79

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Delaney CP (2008) Outcome of discharge within 24–72 hours after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 51:181–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

  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 191:364–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 10:48–54

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wick EC, Shore AD, Hirose K et al (2011) Readmission rates and cost following colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 54:1475–1479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 28:2129–2136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1419–1424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 19:2095–2101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):3727–3736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 57:337–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 56:64–71

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 44:942–946

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 54:1355–1361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 54:144–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Dimick JB, Staiger DO, Hall BL, Ko CY, Birkmeyer JD (2013) Composite measures for profiling hospitals on surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 257:67–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Jiandi Mo, MS for assistance with statistical analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Colorectal Surgical Associates, Houston, TX, USA

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

  2. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA

    Ali Mahmood & Eric M. Haas

  3. Minimally Invasive Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA

    Reena Tahilramani, Ali Mahmood & Eric M. Haas

Authors
  1. Deborah S. Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juan R. Flores-Gonzalez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sergio Ibarra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nisreen Madhoun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Reena Tahilramani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ali Mahmood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eric M. Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah S. Keller.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Deborah S. Keller, Juan R. Flores-Gonzalez, Sergio Ibarra, Nisreen Madhoun, Reena Tahilramani, Ali Mahmood, and Eric M. Haas have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Keller, D.S., Flores-Gonzalez, J.R., Ibarra, S. et al. Evaluating quality across minimally invasive platforms in colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 30, 2207–2216 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4479-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4479-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation