Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Trends in Adoption, Outcomes, and Costs of Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in the Elderly Population

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery Aims and scope

Abstract

Background

The elderly constitute the majority of both colorectal cancer and surgical volume. Despite established safety and feasibility, laparoscopy may remain underutilized for colorectal cancer resections in the elderly. With proven benefits, increasing laparoscopy in elderly colorectal cancer patients could substantially improve outcomes. Our goal was to evaluate utilization and outcomes for laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in the elderly.

Methods

A national inpatient database was reviewed for elective inpatient resections for colorectal cancer from 2010 to 2015. Patients were stratified into elderly (≥ 65 years) and non-elderly cohorts (< 65 years), then grouped into open or laparoscopic procedures. The main outcomes were trends in utilization by approach and total costs, length of stay (LOS), readmission, and complications by approach in the elderly. Multivariable regression models were used to control for differences across platforms, adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics.

Results

Laparoscopic adoption for colorectal cancer in the elderly increased gradually until 2013, then declined, with simultaneously increasing rates of open surgery. Laparoscopy significantly improved all primary outcomes compared to open surgery (all p < 0.01). From the adjusted analysis, laparoscopy reduced complications by 30%, length of stay by 1.99 days, and total costs by $3276/admission. Laparoscopic patients were 34% less likely to be readmitted; when readmitted, the episodes were less expensive when index procedure was laparoscopic.

Conclusion

The adoption of laparoscopy for colorectal cancer surgery in the elderly is slow and even declining recently. In addition to the clinical benefits, there are reduced overall costs, creating a tremendous value proposition if use can be expanded.

Precis

This national contemporary study shows the slow uptake and recent decline in adaption of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in the elderly, despite the benefits in clinical outcomes and costs found. This data can be used to target education, regionalization, and quality improvement efforts in this expanding population.

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. Rostoft S, Hamaker ME. Basic geriatric principles for colorectal surgeons: How to optimize assessment and care of the elderly in the perioperative period. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019

  2. DeSantis CE, Miller KD, Dale W et al. Cancer statistics for adults aged 85 years and older, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019

  3. Wilson JA. Colon cancer screening in the elderly: when do we stop. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2010;121:94–103.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kristjansson SR, Nesbakken A, Jordhøy MS et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment can predict complications in elderly patients after elective surgery for colorectal cancer: a prospective observational cohort study. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2010;76:208–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Grosso G, Biondi A, Marventano S, Mistretta A, Calabrese G, Basile F. Major postoperative complications and survival for colon cancer elderly patients. BMC Surg. 2012;12 Suppl 1:S20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ommundsen N, Nesbakken A, Wyller TB et al. Post-discharge complications in frail older patients after surgery for colorectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44:1542–1547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stępień R, Głuszek S, Kozieł D, Kaczmarczyk M. The risk of surgical treatment in patients aged 85+, with special consideration of colorectal cancer. Pol Przegl Chir. 2014;86:132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jafari MD, Jafari F, Halabi WJ et al. Colorectal Cancer Resections in the Aging US Population: A Trend Toward Decreasing Rates and Improved Outcomes. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:557–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jakobson T, Karjagin J, Vipp L et al. Postoperative complications and mortality after major gastrointestinal surgery. Medicina (Kaunas). 2014;50:111–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hoshino N, Fukui Y, Hida K, Sakai Y. Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in the elderly versus non-elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2019;34:377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tominaga T, Takeshita H, Arai J et al. Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in oldest-old patients. Dig Surg. 2015;32:32–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mukai T, Akiyoshi T, Ueno M et al. Outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in oldest-old patients. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2014;24:366–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Vallribera Valls F, Landi F, Espín Basany E et al. Laparoscopy-assisted versus open colectomy for treatment of colon cancer in the elderly: morbidity and mortality outcomes in 545 patients. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:3373–3378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hemandas AK, Abdelrahman T, Flashman KG et al. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery produces better outcomes for high risk cancer patients compared to open surgery. Ann Surg. 2010;252:84–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Li Y, Wang S, Gao S, Yang C, Yang W, Guo S. Laparoscopic colorectal resection versus open colorectal resection in octogenarians: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and efficacy. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20:153–162.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Al-Refaie WB, Parsons HM, Habermann EB et al. Operative outcomes beyond 30-day mortality: colorectal cancer surgery in oldest old. Ann Surg. 2011;253:947–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Keller DS, Parikh N, Senagore AJ. Predicting opportunities to increase utilization of laparoscopy for colon cancer. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:1855–1862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Keller DS, Qiu J, Senagore AJ. Predicting opportunities to increase utilization of laparoscopy for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:1556–1563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Robinson CN, Chen GJ, Balentine CJ et al. Minimally invasive surgery is underutilized for colon cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:1412–1418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Carmichael JC, Masoomi H, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Nguyen NT. Utilization of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery for cancer at academic medical centers: does site of surgery affect rate of laparoscopy? Am Surg. 2011;77:1300–1304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Premier Research Services. <https://www.premierinc.com/transforming-healthcare/healthcare-performance-improvement/premier-research-services/>. Last accessed September 2017).

  22. Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thompson KD et al. An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data. Lancet. 2008;372:139–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fiscon V, Portale G, Frigo F, Migliorini G. Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer: matched comparison in elderly and younger patients. Tech Coloproctol. 2010;14:323–327.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Story DA. Postoperative complications in elderly patients and their significance for long-term prognosis. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2008;21:375–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gabriel E, Thirunavukarasu P, Al-Sukhni E, Attwood K, Nurkin SJ. National disparities in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:1060–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hawkins AT, Ford MM, Benjamin Hopkins M et al. Barriers to laparoscopic colon resection for cancer: a national analysis. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:1035–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yeo H, Niland J, Milne D et al. Incidence of minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stocchi L, Nelson H, Young-Fadok TM, Larson DR, Ilstrup DM. Safety and advantages of laparoscopic vs. open colectomy in the elderly: matched-control study. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43:326–332.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Chautard J, Alves A, Zalinski S, Bretagnol F, Valleur P, Panis Y. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery in elderly patients: a matched case-control study in 178 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:255–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Person B, Cera SM, Sands DR et al. Do elderly patients benefit from laparoscopic colorectal surgery? Surg Endosc. 2008;22:401–405.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Keller DS, Lawrence JK, Nobel T, Delaney CP. Optimizing cost and short-term outcomes for elderly patients in laparoscopic colonic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:4463–4468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery confers lower mortality in the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 66,483 patients. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:322–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. She WH, Poon JT, Fan JK, Lo OS, Law WL. Outcome of laparoscopic colectomy for cancer in elderly patients. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:308–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Vignali A, Di Palo S, Tamburini A, Radaelli G, Orsenigo E, Staudacher C. Laparoscopic vs. open colectomies in octogenarians: a case-matched control study. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48:2070–2075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Akiyoshi T, Kuroyanagi H, Oya M et al. Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic rectal surgery for primary rectal cancer in elderly patients: is it safe and beneficial. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:1614–1618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Delgado S, Lacy AM, Garcia Valdecasas JC et al. Could age be an indication for laparoscopic colectomy in colorectal cancer? Surg Endosc. 2000;14:22–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Laudicella M, Walsh B, Munasinghe A, Faiz O. Impact of laparoscopic versus open surgery on hospital costs for colon cancer: a population-based retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e012977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ridgway PF, Boyle E, Keane FB, Neary P. Laparoscopic colectomy is cheaper than conventional open resection. Colorectal Dis. 2007;9:819–824.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Hardy KM, Kwong J, Pitzul KB et al. A cost comparison of laparoscopic and open colon surgery in a publicly funded academic institution. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:1213–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Thompson BS, Coory MD, Gordon LG, Lumley JW. Cost savings for elective laparoscopic resection compared with open resection for colorectal cancer in a region of high uptake. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:1515–1521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fitch K, Bochner A, Keller DS. Cost comparison of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy in colon cancer. Curr Med Res Opin. 2017 1–6.

  42. Keller DS, Champagne BJ, Reynolds HLJ, Stein SL, Delaney CP. Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy in rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2014;57:564–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mirel, L.B., Carper, K. Trends in Health Care Expenditures for the Elderly, Age 65 and Over: 2001, 2006, and 2011. Statistical Brief #429. January 2014. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville. http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st429/stat429.pdf. Accessed Dec 2019.

  44. cms.gov. National Health Expenditures Fact Sheet 2016.

  45. Steele SR, Park GE, Johnson EK et al. The impact of age on colorectal cancer incidence, treatment, and outcomes in an equal-access health care system. Dis Colon Rectum 2014;57:303–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mutch MG. Laparoscopic colectomy in the elderly: when is too old? Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2006;19:33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, NewYork-Presbyterian, Columbia University Medical Center, Herbert Irving Pavilion, 161 Fort Washington Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10032, USA

    Deborah S Keller, Thais Reif de Paula & Ravi P Kiran

  2. Minimally Invasive Therapies Group, Medtronic, Inc, Mansfield, MA, USA

    Jiejing Qiu

Authors
  1. Deborah S Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thais Reif de Paula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiejing Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ravi P Kiran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah S Keller.

Ethics declarations

This study was deemed exempt from Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval at Columbia University Medical Center since the study did not involve human subjects, and data were de-identified and compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (45 CFR §46.001(b)(4)).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Podium Presentation

The American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress 2019, October 20–24, 2019, San Francisco, CA.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 Analysis codes
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Keller, D.S., de Paula, T.R., Qiu, J. et al. The Trends in Adoption, Outcomes, and Costs of Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in the Elderly Population. J Gastrointest Surg 25, 766–774 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-020-04517-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-020-04517-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation