Laparoscopic colon resection: is it being utilized?

Comparison of Urban-Rural Readmission Rates After Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Findings From a Privately Insured Population

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the 30-day readmission rate of a privately insured population diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) who had primary tumor resection in rural and urban communities.

METHODS

Claims data of people aged <65 with a diagnosis of CRC between 2012 and 2016 and enrolled in a private health plan administered by BlueCross BlueShield of Nebraska were analyzed. Readmission was defined as the number of discharged patients who were readmitted within 30 days, divided by all discharged patients. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the factors associated with readmission.

RESULTS

The urban population had a higher readmission rate (11%) than the rural population (8%). Although the adjusted odds ratio showed that there is no difference in readmission between rural and urban residents, patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of >1 were more likely than those without CCI to be readmitted (OR 3.59, 1.41-9.11). Patients with open vs. laparoscopic surgery (OR 2.80, 1.39-5.63) and those with an obstructed or perforated colon vs. none (OR 7.17, 3.75-13.72) were more likely to be readmitted.

CONCLUSIONS

Readmission after CRC surgery occurs frequently. Interventions that target the identified risk factors should reduce readmission rates in this privately insured population.

Utilization of Laparoscopic Colon Surgery in the Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File (PUDF)

Background:

Laparoscopic surgery has become the standard of care for the most common surgical procedures performed. However, laparoscopic techniques have not reached this same penetrance in colorectal surgery. We wanted to determine the percentage of colon operations performed in Texas that were done via laparoscopic, robotic and open techniques.

Methods:

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File (PUDF) was queried using ICD-9-CM diagnostic and procedure codes to determine overall utilization of laparoscopic colectomies (LC) in Texas between 2013-14 for reporting facilities. We specifically looked at cost and the length of stay for LC, open colectomy (OC) and robotic assisted colectomy (RAC).

Results:

In the state of Texas between 2013-14 there were 20,454 colectomies performed. Of these 12,328 (60.3%) were OC, 7,536 (36.8%) were LC, and 590 (3.9%) were RAC. Average total cost was $117,113 for OC, $75,741.9 for LC, and $81,996.2 for RAC. Average length of stay for each technique was 10.6 days for OC, 6.1 days for LC, and 5.1 days for RAC. The risk of a postoperative complication occurring was higher in the open procedure than a laparoscopic procedure.

Conclusions:

LC accounted for only 36.8% of all colectomies performed in Texas between 2013-14. OC costs twice as much as LC and increased the length of stay by nearly 4 d. LC and RAC are both associated with significantly less cost and length of stay for patients undergoing surgery, while lowering perioperative complications.

Disclosures:

None of the authors have any relevant disclosures.

Uptake of elective laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer in Canada from 2004/05 to 2014/15: a descriptive analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence from randomized controlled trials published since 2004 shows that elective laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer improves short-term postoperative outcomes with equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open colectomy. The objective of this study was to examine the uptake of elective laparoscopic colectomy in Canada and compare its use among Canadian provinces.

METHODS

In this descriptive analysis, we identified from hospital discharge abstracts all patients in the Canadian provinces (except Quebec) who underwent elective colectomy for colon cancer between 2004/05 and 2014/15. We compared temporal changes in the proportion of patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy or open colectomy among provinces using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 63 504 patients who underwent elective colectomy between 2004/05 and 2014/15, 19 691 (31.0%) underwent laparoscopic colectomy. The annual proportion of patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy increased from 9.2% in 2004/05 to 51.5% in 2014/15 (mean annual percent increase 4.2%). There were significant differences between provinces in the overall proportion of patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy (p < 0.001), ranging from 7.6% in Newfoundland and Labrador to 36.9% in Ontario. By 2014/15, most colectomy procedures were performed laparoscopically in 3 provinces; British Columbia (60.2%), Ontario (59.4%) and Alberta (53.1%). In addition to year and province, urban residence, younger age, female sex, fewer medical comorbidities, high surgeon volume, high hospital volume and right-sided tumours were significantly associated with increased likelihood of laparoscopic colectomy.

INTERPRETATION

Although the use of laparoscopic colectomy increased rapidly between 2004/05 and 2014/15 in Canada, substantial interprovincial variation exists. Further knowledge-translation strategies are needed to ensure equal access to laparoscopic colectomy for all Canadians.

Advances in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has now become widely adopted for the treatment of colorectal neoplasia, with steady increases in utilization over the past 15 years. Common minimally invasive techniques include multiport laparoscopy, single-incision laparoscopy, and hand-assisted laparoscopy, with the choice of technique depending on several patient and surgeon factors. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery involves a robust learning curve, and fellowship training often lays the foundation for a high-volume laparoscopic practice. This article provides a summary of the various techniques for laparoscopic colorectal surgery, including operative steps, the approach to difficult patients, and the learning curve for proficiency.

Combined assessment using optical colonoscopy and computed tomographic colonography improves the determination of tumor location and invasion depth

INTRODUCTION

An accurate assessment of the depth of tumor invasion in patients with colon cancer is an important part of the preoperative evaluation. Whether computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or optical colonoscopy (OC) is better to accurately determine tumor location and invasion depth has not been definitively determined. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of tumor localization and tumor invasion depth of colon cancer by preoperative OC alone or combined with CTC.

METHODS

Study participants include 143 patients who underwent both preoperative CTC using automated CO₂ insufflation and OC from July 2012 to August 2013.

RESULTS

The accuracy of tumor localization was significantly better with CTC than with OC (OC, 90%; CTC, 98%; P < 0.05). No tumor in the descending colon was localized accurately via OC alone. The accuracy of tumor invasion depth was better with CTC plus OC than with OC alone (OC, 55%; CTC, 73%; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

OC combined with CTC provides a more accurate preoperative determination of tumor localization and invasion depth than OC alone.

Pain control for laparoscopic colectomy: an analysis of the incidence and utility of epidural analgesia compared to conventional analgesia

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes between epidural analgesia and conventional intravenous analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. This paper uses a large national database to add a current perspective on trends in analgesia and the outcomes associated with two analgesia options. Our evidence augments the opinions of recent randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

The University HealthSystem Consortium, an alliance of more than 300 academic and affiliate institutions, was reviewed for the time period of October 2008 through September 2014. International Classification of Disease 9th Clinical Modification codes for laparoscopic colectomy and epidural catheter placement were used.

RESULTS

A total of 29,429 patients met our criteria and underwent laparoscopic colectomy during the study period. One hundred and ten (0.374%) patients had an epidural catheter placed for analgesia. Baseline patient demographics were similar for the epidural and conventional analgesia groups. Total charges were significantly higher in the epidural group ($52,998 vs. $39,277; p < 0.001). Median length of stay was longer in the epidural group (6 vs. 5 days; p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between the epidural and conventional analgesia groups in death (0 vs. 0.03%; p = 0.999), urinary tract infection (0 vs. 0.1%; p = 0.999), ileus (11.8 vs. 13.6%; p = 0.582), or readmission rate (9.1 vs. 9.3%; p = 0.942).

CONCLUSION

Compared to conventional analgesic techniques, epidural analgesia does not reduce the rate of postoperative ileus, and it is associated with increased cost and increased length of stay. Based on our data, routine use of epidural analgesia for laparoscopic colectomy cannot be justified.

Comparative Study on Therapeutic Efficacy Between Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery and Conventional Laparotomy for Acute Obstructive Right-Sided Colon Cancer

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective study aims to compare open colectomy and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) in the management of acute obstructive right-sided colon cancer and to analyze and evaluate the feasibility and safety of HALS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ten consecutive patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic right hemicolectomy due to acute obstructive right-sided colon cancer were retrospectively well matched with 25 patients scheduled for a conventional laparotomy during the same time. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were assessed.

RESULTS

The HALS group had the advantage in the length of incision (5.8±0.7 cm) over the conventional group (16±2.3 cm) (P<.05), and the mean blood loss during the operations was significantly less in the HALS group (30±15.2 mL) than in the laparotomy group (90±29.4 mL) (P<.05). Moreover, the time of postoperative ambulation was earlier (2.5±0.8 days versus 3.2±0.9 days) (P<.05). Seven cases underwent intestinal decompression for severe intestinal dilatation and had a satisfactory result. The hand-assisted device can fairly meet the demands of a minimally invasive operation and can protect the abdominal incision and avoid infection. There was no intergroup difference in complication rate, although the conventional group had a higher rate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, compared with conventional laparotomy for acute obstructive right-sided colon neoplasm, HALS is associated with less blood loss, shorter incision, and earlier ambulation. Emergency laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy can be safely performed in patients with obstructing right-sided colonic carcinoma. If practiced more, it might be advocated as a bridge between the conventional open approach and traditional laparoscopic surgery.

Disparities in the Utilization of Laparoscopic Surgery for Colon Cancer in Rural Nebraska: A Call for Placement and Training of Rural General Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Advances in medical technology are changing surgical standards for colon cancer treatment. The laparoscopic colectomy is equivalent to the standard open colectomy while providing additional benefits. It is currently unknown what factors influence utilization of laparoscopic surgery in rural areas and if treatment disparities exist. The objectives of this study were to examine demographic and clinical characteristics associated with receiving laparoscopic colectomy and to examine the differences between rural and urban patients who received either procedure.

METHODS

This study utilized a linked data set of Nebraska Cancer Registry and hospital discharge data on colon cancer patients diagnosed and treated in the entire state of Nebraska from 2008 to 2011 (N = 1,062). Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of receiving the laparoscopic treatment.

RESULTS

Rural colon cancer patients were 40% less likely to receive laparoscopic colectomy compared to urban patients. Independent predictors of receiving laparoscopic colectomy were younger age (<60), urban residence, ≥3 comorbidities, elective admission, smaller tumor size, and early stage at diagnosis. Additionally, rural patients varied demographically compared to urban patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery is becoming the new standard of treatment for colon cancer and important disparities exist for rural cancer patients in accessing the specialized treatment. As cancer treatment becomes more specialized, the importance of training and placement of general surgeons in rural communities must be a priority for health care planning and professional training institutions.