Redefining conversion in laparoscopic colectomy and its influence on outcomes: analysis of 418 cases from a single institution. World J Surg. 2011;35:178-185. [PMID: 20967445 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-010-0824-6]

Unplanned Robotic-Assisted Conversion-to-Open Colorectal Surgery is Associated with Adverse Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic conversion-to-open colorectal surgery is associated with worse outcomes when compared to operations completed without conversion. Consequences of robotic conversion have not yet been determined. The purpose of this study is to compare short-term outcomes of converted robotic colorectal cases with those that are completed without conversion, as well as with cases done by the open approach.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP database was queried for patients who underwent robotic completed, robotic converted-to-open, and open colorectal resection between 2012 and 2015. Propensity scores were estimated using gradient-boosted machines and converted to weights. Generalized linear models were fit using propensity score-weighted data.

RESULTS

A total of 25,253 patients met inclusion criteria-21,356 (84.5%) open, 3663 (14.5%) robotic completed, and 234 (0.9%) conversions. Conversion rate was 6.0%. Converted cases had significantly higher 30-day mortality rate, higher complication rate, and longer hospital length of stay than completed cases. Converted patients also had significantly higher rates of the following complications: surgical site infections, cardiac complications, deep venous thrombosis, postoperative ileus, postoperative re-intubation, renal failure, and 30-day reoperation. Compared to the open approach, converted patients had significantly more cardiac complications, postoperative reintubation, and longer operating times with no significant difference in 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Unplanned robotic conversion-to-open is associated with worse outcomes than completed cases and outcomes that more closely resemble traditional open colorectal surgery. Patients should be counseled with regard to minimally invasive conversion rates and outcomes. The continued pursuit of technological advancements that decrease the risk for conversion in minimally invasive colorectal surgery is clearly warranted.

The cost of conversion in robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Conversion from minimally invasive to open colorectal surgery remains common and costly. Robotic colorectal surgery is associated with lower rates of conversion than laparoscopy, but institutions and payers remain concerned about equipment and implementation costs. Recognizing that reimbursement reform and bundled payments expand perspectives on cost to include the entire surgical episode, we evaluated the role of minimally invasive conversion in total payments.

METHODS

This is an observational study from a linked data registry including clinical data from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative and payment data from the Michigan Value Collaborative between July 2012 and April 2015. We evaluated colorectal resections initiated with open and minimally invasive approaches, and compared reported risk-adjusted and price-standardized 30-day episode payments and their components.

RESULTS

We identified 1061 open, 1604 laparoscopic, and 275 robotic colorectal resections. Adjusted episode payments were significantly higher for open operations than for minimally invasive procedures completed without conversion ($19,489 vs. $15,518, p < 0.001). The conversion rate was significantly higher with laparoscopic than robotic operations (15.1 vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). Adjusted episode payments for minimally invasive operations converted to open were significantly higher than for those completed by minimally invasive approaches ($18,098 vs. $15,518, p < 0.001). Payments for operations completed robotically were greater than those completed laparoscopically ($16,949 vs. $15,250, p < 0.001), but the difference was substantially decreased when conversion to open cases was included ($16,939 vs. $15,699, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

Episode payments for open colorectal surgery exceed both laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive options. Conversion to open surgery significantly increases the payments associated with minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Because conversion rates in robotic colorectal operations are half of those in laparoscopy, the excess expenditures attributable to robotics are attenuated by consideration of the cost of conversions.

Critical appraisal of laparoscopic vs open rectal cancer surgery

AIM: To evaluate the long-term clinical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and the impact of conversion in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS: An analysis was performed on a prospective database of 633 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection. Patients were compared in three groups: Open surgery (OP), laparoscopic surgery, and converted laparoscopic surgery. Short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes, and survival analysis were compared.

RESULTS: Among 633 patients studied, 200 patients had successful laparoscopic resections with a conversion rate of 11.1% (25 out of 225). Factors predictive of survival on univariate analysis include the laparoscopic approach (P = 0.016), together with factors such as age, ASA status, stage of disease, tumor grade, presence of perineural invasion and vascular emboli, circumferential resection margin < 2 mm, and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. The survival benefit of laparoscopic surgery was no longer significant on multivariate analysis (P = 0.148). Neither 5-year overall survival (70.5% vs 61.8%, P = 0.217) nor 5-year cancer free survival (64.3% vs 66.6%, P = 0.854) were significantly different between the laparoscopic group and the converted group.

CONCLUSION: LRR has equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes when compared to OP. Laparoscopic conversion does not confer a worse prognosis.

Hysterectomy in very obese and morbidly obese patients: a systematic review with cumulative analysis of comparative studies

PURPOSE

Some studies suggest that also regarding the patient with a body mass index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m(2) the minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is superior. However, current practice and research on the preference of gynaecologists still show that the rate of abdominal hysterectomy (AH) increases as the BMI increases. A systematic review with cumulative analysis of comparative studies was performed to evaluate the outcomes of AH, laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and vaginal hysterectomy (VH) in very obese and morbidly obese patients (BMI ≥35 kg/m(2)).

METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE were searched for records on AH, LH and VH for benign indications or (early stage) malignancy through October 2014. Included studies were graded on level of evidence. Studies with a comparative design were pooled in a cumulative analysis.

RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials, seven prospective studies and 14 retrospective studies were included (2232 patients; 1058 AHs, 959 LHs, and 215 VHs). The cumulative analysis identified that, compared to LH, AH was associated with more wound dehiscence [risk ratio (RR) 2.58, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.71-3.90; P = 0.000], more wound infection (RR 4.36, 95 % CI 2.79-6.80; P = 0.000), and longer hospital admission (mean difference 2.9 days, 95 % CI 1.96-3.74; P = 0.000). The pooled conversion rate was 10.6 %. Compared to AH, VH was associated with similar advantages as LH.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to AH, both LH and VH are associated with fewer postoperative complications and shorter length of hospital stay. Therefore, the feasibility of LH and VH should be considered prior the abdominal approach to hysterectomy in very obese and morbidly obese patients.

Factors associated with intraoperative conversion during robotic sacrocolpopexy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate for potential predictors of intraoperative conversion from robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) to open abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified 83 consecutive patients from 2002-2012 with symptomatic high-grade post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse that underwent RSC. Multiple clinical variables including patient age, comorbidities (body-mass index [BMI], hypertension, diabetes mellitus, tobacco use), prior intra-abdominal surgery and year of surgery were evaluated for potential association with conversion.

RESULTS

Overall, 14/83 cases (17%) required conversion to an open sacrocolpopexy. Patients requiring conversion were found to have a significantly higher BMI compared to those who did not (median 30.2 kg/m(2) versus 25.8 kg/m(2); p=0.003). Other medical and surgical factors evaluated were similar between the cohorts. When stratified by increasing BMI, conversion remained associated with an increased BMI. That is, conversion occurred in 3.8% (1/26) of patients with BMI ≤ 25 kg/m(2), 14.7% (5/34) with BMI 25-29.9 kg/m(2) and 34.7% (8/23) with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) (p=0.004). When evaluated as a continuous variable, BMI was also associated with a significantly increased risk of conversion to an open procedure (OR 1.18, p=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher BMI was the only clinical factor associated with a significantly increased risk of intra-operative conversion during robotic sacrocolpopexy. Recognition of this may aid in pre-operative counseling and surgical patient selection.

Clinical relevance of conversion rate and its evaluation in laparoscopic hysterectomy

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To estimate the current conversion rate in laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH); to estimate the influence of patient, procedure, and performer characteristics on conversion; and to hypothesize the extent to which conversion rate can act as a means of evaluation in LH.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

The study included 79 gynecologists representing 42 hospitals throughout the Netherlands. This reflects 75% of all gynecologists performing LH in the Netherlands, and 68% of all hospitals.

PATIENTS

Data from 1534 LH procedures were collected between 2008 and 2010.

INTERVENTION

All participants in the nationwide LapTop registration study recorded each consecutive LH they performed during 1 year.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Conversion rate and odds ratios (OR) of risk factors for conversion were calculated. Conversions were described as reactive or strategic. The literature reported a conversion rate for LH of 0% to 19% (mean, 3.5%). In our cohort, 70 LH procedures (4.6%) were converted. Using a mixed-effects logistic regression model, we estimated independent risk factors for conversion. Body mass index (BMI) (p = .002), uterus weight (p < .001), type of LH (p = .004), and age (p = .02) had a significant influence on conversion. The risk of conversion was increased at BMI >35 (OR, 6.53; p < .001), age >65 years (OR, 6.97; p = .007), and uterus weight 200 to 500 g (OR, 4.05; p < .001) and especially >500 g (OR, 30.90; p < .001). A variation that was not explained by the covariates included in our model was identified and referred to as the "surgical skills factor" (average OR, 2.79; p = .001).

CONCLUSION

Use of estimated risk factors (BMI, age, uterus weight, and surgical skills) provides better insight into the risk of conversion. Conversion rate can be used as a means of evaluation to ensure better outcomes of LH in future patients.

Does conversion affect short-term and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopy for colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND

Conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR) for cancer has been associated with adverse short-term and oncologic outcomes. However, most studies have had small sample sizes and short follow-up periods. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of conversion to open surgery on early postoperative outcomes and survival among patients undergoing LCR for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A prospective database of consecutive LCRs for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer was reviewed. Patients who required conversion (CONV group) were compared with those who had completed laparoscopic resection (LAP group). Only patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up period were included in the oncologic analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves were compared to analyze survival. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor survival.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 10.9%. The most common reason for conversion was a locally advanced tumor (48.4%). Conversion was associated with a significantly longer operative time and a greater blood loss. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative morbidity, mortality, or hospital stay between the CONV and LAP patients. During a median follow-up period of 120 months (range, 60-180 months), the CONV group had a significantly worse 5-year overall survival (OS) (79.4 vs 87.4%; p = 0.016) and disease-free survival (DFS) (65.4 vs 79.6%; p = 0.013). Univariate analysis showed that conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, pT4 cancer, stage 3 disease, and adjuvant chemotherapy were significant risk factors for OS and DFS. On multivariate analysis, pT4 cancer and a lymph node ratio (LNR) of 0.25 or greater were the only independent predictors of DFS and OS, whereas a LNR of 0.01 to 0.24 showed a trend that did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to open surgery per se is not associated with worse early postoperative outcomes and does not adversely affect long-term survival per se.

Achieving consensus on the definition of conversion to laparotomy: a Delphi study among general surgeons, gynecologists, and urologists

BACKGROUND

In laparoscopic surgery, conversion to laparotomy is associated with worse clinical outcomes, especially if the conversion is due to a complication. Although apparently important, no commonly used definition of conversion exists. The aim of this study was to achieve multidisciplinary consensus on a uniform definition of conversion.

METHODS

On the basis of definitions currently used in the literature, a web-based Delphi consensus study was conducted among members of all four Dutch endoscopic societies. The rate of agreement (RoA) was calculated; a RoA of >70% suggested consensus.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 268 respondents in the first Delphi round (response rate, 45.6%); 43% were general surgeons, 49% gynecologists, and 8% urologists. Average ± standard deviation laparoscopic experience was 12.5 ± 7.2 years. On the basis of the results of round 1, a consensus definition was compiled. Conversion to laparotomy is an intraoperative switch from a laparoscopic to an open abdominal approach that meets the criteria of one of the two subtypes: strategic conversion, a standard laparotomy that is made directly after the assessment of the feasibility of completing the procedure laparoscopically and because of anticipated operative difficulty or logistic considerations; and reactive conversion, the need for a laparotomy because of a complication or (extension of an incision) because of (anticipated) operative difficulty after a considerable amount of dissection (i.e., >15 min in time). A laparotomy after a diagnostic laparoscopy (i.e., to assess the curability of the disease) should not be considered a conversion. In the second Delphi round, a RoA of 90% was achieved with this definition.

CONCLUSIONS

After two Delphi rounds, consensus on a uniform multidisciplinary definition of conversion was achieved within a representative group of general surgeons, gynecologists, and urologists. An unambiguous interpretation will result in a more reliable clinical registration of conversion and scientific evaluation of the feasibility of a laparoscopic procedure.

Intraoperative difficulties and the reasons for conversion in patients treated with laparoscopic colorectal tumors

THE AIM OF THE STUDY

Was an evaluation of conversion causes and intraoperative difficulties in patients treated with laparoscopic surgery due to colorectal tumours on the basis of authors' own material.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

in the period 2009-2012 160 patients were operated on because of large bowel cancer, 79 women and 81 men. Average age of patients was 66 years. The conversion was recognized as desuflation of peritoneal cavity, trocars removal and making laparotomy.

RESULTS

The conversion was made in 22 cases (13,7%). More in men (16.1%) than in women. The conversion was made twice as likely in T3 and T4 tumors than in T1 and T2.

CONCLUSIONS

The main cause of conversion in laparoscopic operations of colorectal cancer is local tumor progression.

Laparoscopic colorectal resection in the obese patient

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is an accepted alternative to conventional open resection in the surgical approach of both benign and malignant diseases of the colon and rectum. Well-described benefits of laparoscopic surgery include accelerated recovery of bowel function, decreased post-operative pain and shorter hospital stay; these advantages could be particularly beneficial to high-risk patient groups, such as obese patients. At present, data regarding the application of the laparoscopic approach to colorectal resection in the obese is equivocal. We evaluate the available evidence to support laparoscopic colorectal resection in the obese patient population.

Evaluation of laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in elderly patients more than 70 years old: an evaluation of 727 patients

BACKGROUND

With longer life expectancy, surgeons can expect to operate on older patients. Laparoscopic colorectal (LC) surgery has been demonstrated to be superior to open surgery. Controversy persists, however, regarding benefits of LC in the elderly due to increase in operative time. The aim of our study was to compare short-term outcomes of LC versus open colorectal (OC) surgery in elderly patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients ≥70 years old that underwent elective LC between 2005 and 2008 were compared with controls who underwent OC. Data was extracted from a prospectively collected database.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and twenty-seven patients underwent colorectal resection in this study period (LC n = 225, OC n = 502). The laparoscopic arm was characterised by shorter incisions (LC 6.0 cm vs. OC 12.0 cm, p < 0.001) but longer operating times (LC 125 min vs. OC 85 min, p < 0.001). Median use of narcotics and length of stay were significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (LC 2 days vs. OC 3 days, p < 0.001 and LC 6 days vs. OC 7 days, p < 0.001, respectively). There was no significant difference in median recovery of bowel function (LC 4 days vs. OC 4 days, p = 0.14) and post-operative morbidity (p = 0.725). Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower in the laparoscopic arm (LC 1.3% vs. OC 4.6%, p = 0.03)

CONCLUSION

This is the largest series from a single institution comparing LC and OC in elderly patients. In our series, LC in elderly patients was safe and not associated with a higher morbidity. LC was also associated with less narcotic use and shorter length of stay.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has undergone tremendous advancement in the last two decades, with maturation of techniques and integration into current practice.

SOURCES OF DATA

Worldwide English-language literature on laparoscopic surgery for the management of colon and rectal cancer was reviewed.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

A large body of evidence has attested to the improved short-term outcomes and long-term oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Laparoscopic colectomy can be recommended to suitable patients where expertise is available. Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is feasible, with good evidence of faster post-operative recovery and adequate surgical quality, but requires more data on long-term oncological outcomes. This review examines the evidence and current practice of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Does laparoscopic surgery confer a survival advantage for colorectal cancer patients?

GROWING POINTS

The role of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery in colorectal cancer.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Barriers to the adoption of the laparoscopic technique.

Evaluation of current devices in single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a preliminary experience in 32 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery (SILS) suggests a promising alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery. In this report we describe our initial experience with SILS for both right hemicolectomies and anterior resections.

METHODS

Between June 2009 and May 2010, SILS was performed for 32 consecutive cases with benign and malignant pathology. Demographic data, intraoperative parameters, postoperative data, and pathologic data were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one SILS right hemicolectomies, ten ARs, and one abdominal perineal resection (APR) were performed. For SILS right hemicolectomies, one case required full "conversion" to a laparoscopic procedure. The median operating time was 85 min (range 45-150 min) and the median wound length was 5.0 cm (range 3.0-10.0 cm). Median number of lymph nodes extracted in malignant cases was 17(range 10-30) and the overall median length of stay was 6 days (range 5-11). For left-sided lesions, ten cases of ARs (7 high ARs, 2 low ARs, 1 ultralow AR) and one APR were performed. Three cases were completed successfully via the SILS procedure, four cases required one additional port, and four cases required full "conversion" to a laparoscopic procedure. The median operating time was 120 min (range 65-235 min) and the median wound length was 5.0 cm (range 3.0-7.0 cm). Overall median length of stay was also 6 days (range 5-21). There was one case of anastomotic leak and one case of postoperative bleeding.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, SILS for right hemicolectomies is safe and effective with reproducible oncologic results. SILS AR, however, requires greater modifications in current devices and techniques. SILS AR can be performed for both malignant and benign diseases but additional ports may be necessary for the safe completion of the procedure.

Prognostic Variables in 1814 Sporadic Colon Cancers: A Review of Experience from a Single Institution from 1999–2005

Introduction:

Singapore has one of the highest age-standardized incidence rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) at 35.1% in men and 29.9% in women which is almost double that of our neighboring Southeast Asian countries. Surgery is presently the mainstay in treatment of this cancer. This present study evaluates the clinical and prognostic characteristics of sporadic cancers treated by surgical resection in a single institution in an Asian population.

Methods:

1814 consecutive patients with CRC from 1999–2005 treated in the Department of Colorectal Surgery in Singapore General Hospital were reviewed. The clinciopathological characteristics of these patients were collected from a prospectively collected database maintained in the department since 1987. Univariate analysis was performed, and survival curves were constructed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis was carried out on independent prognostic factors that were positive on univariate analysis.

Results:

All patients had a minimum follow up duration of 5 years unless they were lost to follow up. There were 921 (50.8%) males and 893 (49.2%) females with a median age of 67 years (interquartile range 22–99). The predominant location of the tumour was left-sided ie distal to (and including) the splenic flexure (n=1272, 70%), and the majority presented at an advanced AJCC stage III and IV (n=1018, 56%). The most common site for solitary metastasis is in the liver (n=194, 49%) followed by the lungs (6%). Locoregional recurrence is low at 2.6% (n=46) and distant recurrence is noted at 16.8% (n=297). Disease recurrence are 5.7%, 18.1%, and 27.5% for Stages I, II and III respectively. The median five-year Cancer Specific Survival (CSS) is 58.7 % (95% CI 56.2%–61.2%). On multivariate analysis, a high pre-operative CEA, poorly-differentiated tumour grade, signet ring cell tumours, high tumour stage (T3/T4), nodal disease (N1/N2), presence of both perineural invasion and vascular emboli were all significant factors that worsened CSS.

Conclusion:

Our dataset confirms the current favourable survival of colonic cancers in our country which is comparable to data from the West. Future challenges in management of patients involve improving staging, selection of high risk of recurrence of patients for closer monitoring and further adjuvant treatment to improve survival and reduce locoregional recurrence.