Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 159–168 | Cite as

With widespread adoption of MIS colectomy for colon cancer, does hospital type matter?

  • K. FreischlagEmail author
  • M. Adam
  • M. Turner
  • J. Watson
  • B. Ezekian
  • P. M. Schroder
  • C. Mantyh
  • J. Migaly



Recent studies have shown that hospital type impacts patient outcomes, but no studies have examined hospital differences in outcomes for patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for segmental colectomies.


The 2010–2014 National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients undergoing segmental colectomy for non-metastatic colon adenocarcinoma. Descriptive statistics characterized MIS utilization by hospital type. Multivariable models were used to examine the effect of hospital type on outcomes after MIS. Survival probability was plotted using the Kaplan–Meier method.


80,922 patients underwent MIS segmental colectomy for colon cancer from 2010 to 2014. From 2010 to 2014, the number of MIS segmental colectomies increased by 157% at academic hospitals, 151% at comprehensive hospitals, and 153% at community hospitals. Compared to academic hospitals, community and comprehensive hospitals had greater adjusted odds of positive margins (Community OR 1.525, 95% Confidence Interval 1.233–1.885; Comprehensive OR 1.216, 95% CI 1.041–1.42), incomplete number of lymph nodes analyzed (< 12 LNs) from surgery (Community OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.98–2.32; Comprehensive OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.34–1.51), and greater 30-day mortality (Community OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14–1.78; Comprehensive OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17–1.59). Patient survival probability was higher at academic hospitals at 5 years (Academic 69% vs. Comprehensive 66% vs. Community 63%, p < 0.001). Community hospitals and comprehensive hospitals had significantly higher risk of adjusted long-term mortality (Community HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.19–1.37; p < 0.001; Comprehensive HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.09–1.20; p < 0.001).


Despite widespread use of laparoscopic oncologic surgery, short- and long-term outcomes from MIS for segmental colectomy are superior at academic hospitals. This difference may be due to superior perioperative oncologic technique and surgical outcomes at academic hospitals. Our data provide important information for patients, referring physicians, and surgeons about the significance of hospital type in management of colon cancer.


Hospital type Colorectal Malignancy Resection Outcomes 


Compliance with ethical standards


Kyle Freischlag, Mohamed Adam, Megan Turner, Brain Ezekian, Joshua Watson, Paul M. Schroder, Christopher Mantyh, and John Migaly have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Bonjer HJ et al (2007) Laparoscopically assisted vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg 142(3):298–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holder-Murray J, Dozois EJ (2011) Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer: past, present, and future. Int J Surg Oncol 2011:490917Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fowler DL, White SA (1991) Laparoscopy-assisted sigmoid resection. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1(3):183–188Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS (1991) Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1(3):144–150Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350(20):2050–2059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braga M et al (2002) Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: a randomized trial on short-term outcome. Ann Surg 236(6):759–766 (Disscussion 767)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guillou PJ et al (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365(9472):1718–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lacy AM et al (2002) Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 359(9325):2224–2229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liang JT et al (2007) Oncologic results of laparoscopic versus conventional open surgery for stage II or III left-sided colon cancers: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg Oncol 14(1):109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Milsom JW et al (1998) A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg 187(1):46–54 (Discussion 54–55)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Veldkamp R et al (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6(7):477–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Noel JK et al (2007) Minimally invasive colorectal resection outcomes: short-term comparison with open procedures. J Am Coll Surg 204(2):291–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weeks JC et al (2002) Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 287(3):321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schwenk W et al (2005) Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD003145Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiran RP et al (2010) Laparoscopic approach significantly reduces surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: data from national surgical quality improvement program. J Am Coll Surg 211(2):232–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bartels SA et al (2010) Quality of life after laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: a systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 16(40):5035–5041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jayne DG et al (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(11):1638–1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuhry E et al (2008) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Cancer Treat Rev 34(6):498–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    da Luz Moreira A et al (2010) Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for patients with American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classifications 3 and 4: the minimally invasive approach is associated with significantly quicker recovery and reduced costs. Surg Endosc 24(6):1280–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weber WP et al (2007) Impact of surgeon and hospital caseload on the likelihood of performing laparoscopic vs open sigmoid resection for diverticular disease: a study based on 55,949 patients. Arch Surg 142(3):253–259 (Discussion 259)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alnasser M et al (2014) National disparities in laparoscopic colorectal procedures for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 28(1):49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moghadamyeghaneh Z et al (2015) Variations in laparoscopic colectomy utilization in the United States. Dis Colon Rectum 58(10):950–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roohan PJ et al (1998) Hospital volume differences and five-year survival from breast cancer. Am J Public Health 88(3):454–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bach PB et al (2001) The influence of hospital volume on survival after resection for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 345(3):181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fong Y et al (2005) Long-term survival is superior after resection for cancer in high-volume centers. Ann Surg 242(4):540–544 (Discussion 544–547)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Killeen SD et al (2005) Provider volume and outcomes for oncological procedures. Br J Surg 92(4):389–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Birkmeyer JD et al (2007) Hospital volume and late survival after cancer surgery. Ann Surg 245(5):777–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Begg CB et al (1998) Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA 280(20):1747–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Holm T et al (1997) Influence of hospital- and surgeon-related factors on outcome after treatment of rectal cancer with or without preoperative radiotherapy. Br J Surg 84(5):657–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    American College of Surgeons. National Cancer Data Base. [cited 2016 March 19]; Available from
  31. 31.
    Bilimoria KY et al (2008) The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol 15(3):683–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    American College of Surgeons. National Cancer Data BaseData Dictionary PUF 2015 (2017) [cited 2018 4/1/2018]; Available from
  33. 33.
    Baxter NN et al (2005) Lymph node evaluation in colorectal cancer patients: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 97(3):219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bilimoria KY et al (2008) Lymph node evaluation as a colon cancer quality measure: a national hospital report card. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(18):1310–1317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    (NCDB), N.C.D.B. Hospital Type or Health Care System. 2016; Available from
  36. 36.
    Burke LG et al (2017) Association between teaching status and mortality in US hospitals. JAMA 317(20):2105–2113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aquina CT et al (2018) Surgeon, hospital, and geographic variation in minimally invasive colectomy. Ann Surg. Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tekkis PP et al (2005) Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: comparison of right-sided and left-sided resections. Ann Surg 242(1):83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ritchie WP Jr, Rhodes RS, Biester TW (1999) Work loads and practice patterns of general surgeons in the United States, 1995–1997: a report from the American Board of Surgery. Ann Surg 230(4):533–542 (Discussion 542–543)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dominguez EP et al (2013) Minimally invasive surgery adoption into an established surgical practice: impact of a fellowship-trained colleague. Surg Endosc 27(4):1267–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Birch DW, Misra M, Farrokhyar F (2007) The feasibility of introducing advanced minimally invasive surgery into surgical practice. Can J Surg 50(4):256–260Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schrag D et al (2003) Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection. J Surg Oncol 83(2):68–78 (Discussion 78–79)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Massarotti H et al (2017) Impact of surgeon laparoscopic training and case volume of laparoscopic surgery on conversion during elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 19(1):76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Buurma M et al (2015) Influence of individual surgeon volume on oncological outcome of colorectal cancer surgery. Int J Surg Oncol 2015:464570Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Liu CJ et al (2015) Association of surgeon volume and hospital volume with the outcome of patients receiving definitive surgery for colorectal cancer: a nationwide population-based study. Cancer 121(16):2782–2790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Karanicolas PJ et al (2009) The more the better?: the impact of surgeon and hospital volume on in-hospital mortality following colorectal resection. Ann Surg 249(6):954–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Borowski DW et al (2007) Impact of surgeon volume and specialization on short-term outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 94(7):880–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rogers SO Jr et al (2006) Relation of surgeon and hospital volume to processes and outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 244(6):1003–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    McGrath DR et al (2005) Surgeon and hospital volume and the management of colorectal cancer patients in Australia. ANZ J Surg 75(10):901–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Larson DW et al (2008) Surgeon volume does not predict outcomes in the setting of technical credentialing: results from a randomized trial in colon cancer. Ann Surg 248(5):746–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ko CY et al (2002) Are high-volume surgeons and hospitals the most important predictors of in-hospital outcome for colon cancer resection? Surgery 132(2):268–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Waters JA et al (2010) Laparoscopic colectomy: does the learning curve extend beyond colorectal surgery fellowship? JSLS 14(3):325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ross HM et al (2008) Adoption of laparoscopic colectomy: results and implications of ASCRS hands-on course participation. Surg Innov 15(3):179–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tsui C, Klein R, Garabrant M (2013) Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy. Surg Endosc 27(7):2253–2257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sheetz KH et al (2017) Provider experience and the comparative safety of laparoscopic and open colectomy. Health Serv Res 52(1):56–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Damle RN et al (2014) Surgeon volume and elective resection for colon cancer: an analysis of outcomes and use of laparoscopy. J Am Coll Surg 218(6):1223–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lowes M et al (2017) The utilization of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDT) in clinical routine: results of a health care research study focusing on patients with metastasized colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Munro A et al (2015) Do Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) processes influence survival in patients with colorectal cancer? A population-based experience. BMC Cancer 15:686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bonrath EM et al (2015) Comprehensive surgical coaching enhances surgical skill in the operating room: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 262(2):205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Greenberg CC et al (2015) Surgical coaching for individual performance improvement. Ann Surg 261(1):32–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nagendran M et al (2013) Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8:CD006575Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Parent RJ et al (2010) Early, intermediate, and late effects of a surgical skills “boot camp” on an objective structured assessment of technical skills: a randomized controlled study. J Am Coll Surg 210(6):984–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duke University Medical Center, SurgeryDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Duke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations