Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic-assisted Colorectal Surgery in the United States: A Nationwide Analysis of Trends and Outcomes

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

While robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is becoming increasingly popular, data comparing its outcomes to other established techniques remain limited to small case series. Moreover, there are no large studies evaluating the trends of RACS at the national level.

Methods

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009–2010 was retrospectively reviewed for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal procedures performed for cancer, benign polyps, and diverticular disease. Trends in different settings, indications, and demographics were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare selected outcomes between RACS and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

Results

An estimated 128,288 colorectal procedures were performed through minimally invasive techniques over the study period, and RACS was used in 2.78 % of cases. From 2009 to 2010, the use of robotics increased in all hospital settings but was still more common in large, urban, and teaching hospitals. Rectal cancer was the most common indication for RACS, with a tendency toward its selective use in male patients. On multivariate analysis, robotic surgery was associated with higher hospital charges in colonic ($11,601.39; 95 % CI 6,921.82–16,280.97) and rectal cases ($12,964.90; 95 % CI 6,534.79–19,395.01), and higher rates of postoperative bleeding in colonic cases (OR = 2.15; 95 % CI 1.27– 3.65). RACS was similar to CLS with respect to length of hospital stay, morbidity, anastomotic leak, and ileus. Conversion to open surgery was significantly lower in robotic colonic and rectal procedures (0.41; 95 % CI 0.25–0.67) and (0.10; 95 % CI 0.06–0.16), respectively.

Conclusions

The use of RACS is still limited in the United States. However, its use increased over the study period despite higher associated charges and no real advantages over laparoscopy in terms of outcome. The one advantage is lower conversion rates.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ballantyne GH (2002) Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Review of early clinical results. Surg Endosc 16:1389–1402

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ewing DR, Pigazzi A, Wang Y et al (2004) Robots in the operating room—the history. Semin Laparosc Surg 11:63–71

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barry MJ, Gallagher PM, Skinner JS et al (2012) Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of Medicare-age men. J Clin Oncol 30:513–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:431–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:382–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lowrance WT, Eastham JA, Savage C et al (2012) Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. J Urol 187:2087–2093

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lowery WJ, Leath CA 3rd, Robinson RD (2012) Robotic surgery applications in the management of gynecologic malignancies. J Surg Oncol 105:481–487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A et al (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1689–1694 discussion 1695–1686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hashizume M, Shimada M, Tomikawa M et al (2002) Early experiences of endoscopic procedures in general surgery assisted by a computer-enhanced surgical system. Surg Endosc 16:1187–1191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Vibert E, Denet C, Gayet B (2003) Major digestive surgery using a remote-controlled robot: the next revolution. Arch Surg 138:1002–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ et al (2003) Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1633–1639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Anvari M, Birch DW, Bamehriz F et al (2004) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 14:311–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 

  14. Pigazzi A, Ellenhorn JD, Ballantyne GH et al (2006) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 20:1521–1525

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rawlings AL, Woodland JH, Vegunta RK et al (2007) Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 21:1701–1708

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH et al (2011) S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 25:240–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Patel CB, Ragupathi M, Ramos-Valadez DI et al (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 

  18. Pigazzi A, Luca F, Patriti A et al (2010) Multicentric study on robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1614–1620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Spinoglio G, Summa M, Priora F et al (2008) Robotic colorectal surgery: first 50 cases experience. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1627–1632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Baik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS et al (2009) Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1480–1487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bertani E, Chiappa A, Biffi R et al (2011) Assessing appropriateness for elective colorectal cancer surgery: clinical, oncological, and quality-of-life short-term outcomes employing different treatment approaches. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:1317–1327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Park IJ, You YN, Schlette E et al (2012) Reverse-hybrid robotic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 55:228–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Marecik SJ et al (2010) Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the potential advantage of robotic assistance. Dis Colon Rectum 53:1611–1617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)—Nationwide inpatient Sample 2012

  25. Anderson JE, Chang DC, Parsons JK et al (2012) The first national examination of outcomes and trends in robotic surgery in the United States. J Am Coll Surg 215:107–114 discussion 114–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. van Walraven C, Austin PC, Jennings A et al (2009) A modification of the Elixhauser comorbidity measures into a point system for hospital death using administrative data. Med Care 47:626–633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ballantyne GH (2002) The pitfalls of laparoscopic surgery: challenges for robotics and telerobotic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wexner SD, Bergamaschi R, Lacy A et al (2009) The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results of a multinational interdisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Endosc 23:438–443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Park JJ et al (2010) Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role? Dis Colon Rectum 53:1000–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ayav A, Bresler L, Brunaud L et al (2004) Early results of one-year robotic surgery using the Da Vinci system to perform advanced laparoscopic procedures. J Gastrointest Surg 8:720–726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Park YA, Kim JM, Kim SA et al (2010) Totally robotic surgery for rectal cancer: from splenic flexure to pelvic floor in one setup. Surg Endosc 24:715–720

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS (1991) Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1:144–150

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Kemp JA, Finlayson SR (2008) Nationwide trends in laparoscopic colectomy from 2000 to 2004. Surg Endosc 22:1181–1187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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 

  36. 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 

  37. Kang CY, Halabi WJ, Luo R et al (2012) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a better look into the latest trends. Arch Surg 147:724–731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Park JS, Choi GS, Park SY et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg 99:1219–1226

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Choi GSPJ, Kim SH, Kim NK (2011) A trial to assess robot-assisted surgery and laparoscopy-assisted surgery in patients with mid or low rectal cancer (COLRAR) (NCT01423214). A prospective randomized trial. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01423214. Accessed 28 Jan 2013

  40. Collinson FJ, Jayne DG, Pigazzi A et al (2012) An international, multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, unblinded, parallel-group trial of robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 27:233–241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Zapletal C, Woeste G, Bechstein WO et al (2007) Laparoscopic sigmoid resections for diverticulitis complicated by abscesses or fistulas. Int J Colorectal Dis 22:1515–1521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ragupathi M, Ramos-Valadez DI, Patel CB et al (2011) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for recurrent diverticulitis: experience in consecutive cases and a review of the literature. Surg Endosc 25:199–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA et al (2010) Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 252:254–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A (2009) Short- and medium-term outcome of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic rectal resection. JSLS 13:176–183

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mirnezami A, Mirnezami R, Chandrakumaran K et al (2011) Increased local recurrence and reduced survival from colorectal cancer following anastomotic leak: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 253:890–899

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. White I, Greenberg R, Itah R et al (2011) Impact of conversion on short and long-term outcome in laparoscopic resection of curable colorectal cancer. JSLS 15:182–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO et al (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum. Surg Endosc 26:1–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Ricci J et al (2011) A comparison of open and robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 54:275–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lorence DP, Ibrahim IA (2003) Benchmarking variation in coding accuracy across the United States. J Health Care Finance 29:29–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Alessio Pigazzi is a consultant for Intuitive Surgical, manufacturers of the Da Vinci Robotic system. Michael Stamos is a consultant for Ethicon, Covidien, and Olympus and has received educational grants paid to the Department of Surgery at the University of California-Irvine. Steven Mills has received an educational grant from Ethicon paid to the Department of Surgery at the University of California, Irvine. No funding was received from any source for the work reported here.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of California Irvine, Irvine School of Medicine, 333 City Blvd West, Suite 850, Orange, CA, 92868, USA

    Wissam J. Halabi, Celeste Y. Kang, Mehraneh D. Jafari, Joseph C. Carmichael, Steven Mills, Michael J. Stamos & Alessio Pigazzi

  2. Department of Statistics, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA

    Vinh Q. Nguyen

Authors
  1. Wissam J. Halabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Celeste Y. Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mehraneh D. Jafari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vinh Q. Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joseph C. Carmichael
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Steven Mills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael J. Stamos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alessio Pigazzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessio Pigazzi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Halabi, W.J., Kang, C.Y., Jafari, M.D. et al. Robotic-assisted Colorectal Surgery in the United States: A Nationwide Analysis of Trends and Outcomes. World J Surg 37, 2782–2790 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2024-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2024-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation