Trends in the Use of Laparoscopy and Robotics for Colorectal Cancer in Florida

Consumer and provider perceptions of the specialist unit model of care: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Specialist care units cater to targeted cohorts of patients, applying evidence-based practice to people with a specific condition (e.g., dementia) or meeting other specific criteria (e.g., children). This paper aimed to collate perceptions of local consumers and health providers around specialist care units, as a model of care that may be considered for a new local healthcare facility.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study using two-hour workshops and interviews to collect data. Participants were consumers and health providers in the planned facility's catchment: 49 suburbs in metropolitan Australia. Consumers and health providers were recruited through advertisements and emails. An initial survey collected demographic details. Consumers and health providers participated in separate two-hour workshops in which a scenario around the specialist unit model was presented and discussion on benefits, barriers and enablers of the model was led by researchers. Detailed notes were taken for analysis.

RESULTS

Five consumer workshops (n = 22 participants) and five health provider workshops (n = 42) were conducted. Participants were representative of this culturally diverse region. Factors identified by participants as relevant to the specialist unit model of care included: accessibility; a perceived narrow scope of practice; coordination with other services; resources and infrastructure; and awareness and expectations of the units. Some factors identified as risks or barriers when absent were identified as strengths and enablers when present by both groups of participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive views of the model centred on the higher perceived quality of care received in the units. Negative views centred on a perceived narrow scope of care and lack of flexibility. Consumers hinted, and providers stated explicitly, that the model needed to be complemented by an integrated model of care model to enable continuity of care and easy transfer of patients into and out of the specialist unit.

Clinical effect of laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer based on propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing annually. Laparoscopic radical resection of CRC is a minimally invasive procedure preferred in clinical practice.

AIM

To investigate the clinical effect of laparoscopic radical resection of CRC on the basis of propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

The clinical data of 100 patients who received inpatient treatment for CRC at Changde Hospital, Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University (The First People's Hospital of Changde City) were analyzed retrospectively. The control group included patients who underwent open surgery (n = 43), and those who underwent laparoscopic surgery formed the observation group (n = 57). The baseline information of both groups was equipoised using 1 × 1 PSM. Differences in the perioperative parameters, inflammatory response, immune function, degree of pain, and physical status between the groups were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients from both groups were successfully matched. After PSM, baseline data showed no statistically significant differences between the groups: (1) Perioperative parameters: The observation group had a longer surgery time, less intraoperative blood loss, earlier first ambulation and first anal exhaust times, and shorter gastric tube indwelling time than the control group; (2) Inflammatory response: 24 h after surgery, the levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) between groups were higher than preoperatively. IL-6, CRP, and TNF-α levels in the observation group were lower than in the control group; (3) Immune function: At 24 h after surgery, counts of CD4-positive T-lymphocytes (CD4+) and CD4+/CD8-positive T-lymphocytes (CD8+) in both groups were lower than those before surgery, whereas CD8+ was higher than that before surgery. At 24 h after surgery, both CD4+ counts and CD4+/CD8+ in the observation group were higher than those in the control group, whereas CD8+ counts were lower; (4) Degree of pain: The visual analog scale scores in the observation group were lower than those in the control group at 24 and 72 h after surgery; and (5) Physical status: One month after surgery, the Karnofsky performance score in the observation group was higher than that in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic radical resection of CRC has significant benefits, such as reducing postoperative pain and postoperative inflammatory response, avoiding excessive immune inhibition, and contributing to postoperative recovery.

Health-care expenditures are less for minimally invasive than open colectomy for colon cancer: A US commercial claims database analysis

BACKGROUND

Most studies comparing surgical platforms focus on short-term outcomes. In this study, we compare the expanding societal penetration of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with open colectomy by assessing payer and patient expenditures up to one year for patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer.

METHODS

We analyzed the IBM MarketScan Database for patients who underwent left or right colectomy for colon cancer between 2013 and 2020. Outcomes included perioperative complications and total health-care expenditures up to 1 year following colectomy. We compared results for patients who had open colectomy (OS) to those with MIS operations. Subgroup analyses were performed for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC+) versus no adjuvant chemotherapy (AC-) groups and for laparoscopic (LS) versus robotic (RS) approaches.

RESULTS

Of 7,063 patients, 4,417 cases did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy (OS: 20.1%, LS: 67.1%, RS: 12.7%) and 2646 cases had adjuvant chemotherapy (OS: 28.4%, LS: 58.7%, RS: 12.9%) after discharge. MIS colectomy was associated with lower mean expenditure at index surgery and post-discharge periods for AC- patients (index surgery: $34,588 vs $36,975; 365-day post-discharge $20,051 vs $24,309) and for AC+ patients (index surgery: $37,884 vs $42,160; 365-day post-discharge $103,341vs $135,113; p < 0.001 for all comparisons). LS had similar index surgery expenditures but significantly higher expenditures at post-discharge 30 days (AC-: $2,834 vs $2276, p = 0.005; AC+: $9100 vs $7698, p = 0.020) than RS. The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the MIS group than the open group for AC- patients (20.5% vs 31.2%) and AC+ patients (22.6% vs 39.1%, both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

MIS colectomy is associated with better value at lower expenditure than open colectomy for colon cancer at the index operation and up to one year after surgery. RS expenditure is less than LS in the first 30 postoperative days regardless of chemotherapy status and may extend to 1 year for AC- patients.

Factors contributing to the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some studies have suggested disparities in access to robotic colorectal surgery, however, it is unclear which factors are most meaningful in the determination of approach relative to laparoscopic or open surgery. This study aimed to identify the most influential factors contributing to robotic colorectal surgery utilization.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of published studies that compared the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery versus laparoscopic or open surgery. Eligible studies were identified through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations in September 2021.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included in the analysis. Patients were less likely to undergo robotic versus laparoscopic surgery if they were female (OR = 0.91, 0.84-0.98), older (OR = 1.61, 1.38-1.88), had Medicare (OR = 0.84, 0.71-0.99), or had comorbidities (OR = 0.83, 0.77-0.91). Non-academic hospitals had lower odds of conducting robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (OR = 0.73, 0.62-0.86). Additional disparities were observed when comparing robotic with open surgery for patients who were Black (OR = 0.78, 0.71-0.86), had lower income (OR = 0.67, 0.62-0.74), had Medicaid (OR = 0.58, 0.43-0.80), or were uninsured (OR = 0.29, 0.21-0.39).

CONCLUSION

When determining who undergoes robotic surgery, consideration of factors such as age and comorbid conditions may be clinically justified, while other factors seem less justifiable. Black patients and the underinsured were less likely to undergo robotic surgery. This study identifies nonclinical disparities in access to robotics that should be addressed to provide more equitable access to innovations in colorectal surgery.

Comparison of clinical efficacy and postoperative inflammatory response between laparoscopic and open radical resection of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased annually, which has seriously threatened the health and quality of life of patients. In the treatment of CRC, both laparoscopic and radical resection are widely used.

AIM

To explore and discuss clinical efficacy and postoperative inflammatory response of laparoscopic and open radical resection of CRC.

METHODS

A total of 96 patients with CRC diagnosed in our hospital from March 2016 to April 2021 were selected, and were divided into the study group (n = 48) and control group (n = 48) using a simple random method. The control group was treated with open radical resection of CRC, and the study group was treated with laparoscopic radical resection of CRC. The perioperative conditions (operation time, intraoperative blood loss, the recovery time of gastrointestinal function, number of lymph node dissections and length of hospital stay), inflammatory response index levels [interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, IL-10, C-reactive protein (CRP)] before and after operation, pain stress response indices [levels of neuropeptide (NPY), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)], and the incidence of the complications between the two groups were counted.

RESULTS

The operation time in the study group was (186.18 ± 33.54 min), which was longer than that of the control group (129.38 ± 26.83 min), but the intraoperative blood loss (111.34 ± 21.45 mL), recovery time of gastrointestinal function (25.35 ± 4.55 h), and hospital stay (10.09 ± 2.38 d) were better than those in the control group (163.77 ± 32.41 mL, 36.06 ± 7.13 h, 13.51 ± 3.66 d) (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the number of lymph node dissections between the study group (15.19 ± 3.04) and the control group (16.20 ± 2.98) (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the levels of serum IL-6 (9.79 ± 4.11 ng/mL), IL-8 (3.79 ± 1.71 ng/L), IL-10 (48.96 ± 12.51 ng/L) and CRP (7.98 ± 2.33 mg/L) in the study group and the control group (10.56 ± 3.78 ng/mL, 4.08 ± 1.45 ng/L, 50.13 ± 11.67 ng/L, 8.29 ± 2.60 mg/L) before the operation (P > 0.05). After the operation, there was no significant difference between the levels of serum IL-6 (19.11 ± 6.68 ng/mL). There was no significant difference in serum NPY (109.79 ± 13.46 UG/L), PGE2 (269.54 ± 37.34 ng/L), 5-HT (151.70 ± 18.86 ng/L) between the study group and the control group (113.29 ± 15.01 UG/L, 273.91 ± 40.04 ng/L, 148.85 ± 20.45 ng/L) before the operation (P > 0.05). The incidence of the complications in the study group (4.17%) was lower than that of the control group (18.75%) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic radical resection of CRC can reduce surgical trauma, inflammatory response and pain stress caused by surgery, which shortens rehabilitation of patients, with a low incidence of complications.

Is robotic utilization associated with increased minimally invasive colorectal surgery rates? Surgeon-level evidence

Background

It is unclear whether robotic utilization has increased overall minimally invasive colorectal surgery rates or if robotics is being adopted instead of laparoscopy. The goal was to evaluate whether increasing robotic surgery utilization is associated with increased rates of overall colorectal minimally invasive surgery.

Methods

The Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (New York) was used to identify patients undergoing elective colectomy or proctectomy from 2009 to 2015. Individual surgeons were categorized as having increasing or non-increasing robotic utilization (IRU or non-IRU, respectively) based on the annual increase in the proportion of robotic surgery performed. The odds of surgical approach across the study period were evaluated with multinomial regression.

Results

Among 72,813 resections from 2009 to 2015, minimally invasive-surgery increased (47–61%, p < 0.0001). For colectomy, overall minimally invasive-surgery rates increased (54–66%, p < 0.0001), laparoscopic remained stable (53–54%), and robotics increased (1–12%). For proctectomy, overall minimally invasive-surgery rates increased (22–43%, p < 0.0001), laparoscopic remained stable (20–21%), and robotics increased (2–22%). Over the study period, 2487 surgeons performed colectomies. Among 156 surgeons with IRU for colectomies, robotics increased (2–29%), while laparoscopy decreased (67–44%), and open surgery decreased (31–27%). Overall, surgeons with IRU performed minimally invasive colectomies 73% of the time in 2015 versus 69% in 2009. Over the study period, 1131 surgeons performed proctectomies. Among 94 surgeons with IRU for proctectomies, robotics increased (3–42%), while laparoscopy decreased (25–15%), and open surgery decreased (73–44%). Overall, surgeons with IRU performed minimally invasive proctectomy 56% of the time in 2015 versus 27% in 2009. Patients in the latter study period had 57% greater odds of undergoing robotic surgery.

Conclusions

Overall, minimally invasive colorectal resections increased from 2009 to 2015 largely due to increasing robotic utilization, particularly for proctectomies.

Permanent stoma: a quality outcome in treatment of rectal cancer and its impact on length of stay

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify socioeconomic predictors of permanent stoma in rectal cancer treatment and examine its association with length of stay at the treatment facility.

METHODS

Rectal cancer patients who underwent elective surgery between January 2015 and December 2018 were identified from the Agency for Health Care Administration Florida Hospital Inpatient Discharge Dataset. Multivariate regression models were utilized to identify demographic and socioeconomic factors associated with receiving a permanent stoma as well as the associated length of stay of these patients.

RESULTS

Of 2630 rectal cancer patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer, 21% had a permanent stoma. The odds of receiving permanent stoma increased with higher Elixhauser score, metastatic disease, advanced age, having open surgery, residence in Southwest Florida, and having Medicaid insurance or no insurance/self-payers (p < 0.05). Patients with a permanent stoma had a significantly extended stay after surgery (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a permanent stoma following cancer resection were more likely to have open surgery, had more comorbidities, and had a longer length of stay. Having permanent stoma was higher in patients living in South West Florida, patients with Medicaid insurance, and in the uninsured. Additionally, the payer type significantly affected the length of stay.

Consulting 'Dr. Google' for minimally invasive urological oncological surgeries: A contemporary web-based trend analysis

PURPOSE

To determine web-based public interest in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) specifically for urological oncological surgical procedures and how interest in robotics and laparoscopy compares over time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Worldwide search-engine trend analysis included electronic Google queries of MIS urologic options from January 2004 to August 2019, worldwide. Join-point regression was performed. Comparison of annual relative search volume (ARSV) and average annual percentage change (AAPC) were analysed to assess loss or gain of interest. Evaluations were made regarding 1) penetrance of interest for MIS in Urology; 2) how MIS urologic procedures compared over time; and 3) which were the top related queries to searches for urologic oncology procedures.

RESULTS

Increased interest was found for all of the MIS procedures evaluated. Mean ARSV for robotic approach was higher for the search term 'prostatectomy" (44.8 vs. 13.5; p < 0.001) and 'partial nephrectomy" (27.1 vs.11.5; p = 0.02). No statistical difference was found for the search terms 'cystectomy" or 'nephrectomy". The analysis of mean (∆-ARSV) of MIS procedures measured between the first and last 12 months of the study period showed an increased interest with a more pronounced ∆-ARSV for robotic procedures. The top related searches for all surgical procedures were examined showing an increasing inquisitiveness with regards of type of urological cancers, treatment options, type of surgery and prognostic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

People are increasingly searching the web for MIS urological procedures. A growing appeal for robotics is demonstrated, especially for prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy where the robotic approach is gaining traction, suggesting a shift in mind-set amongst people seeking urological healthcare information.

Trends in Oncology: an Updated Review of Minimally Invasive Surgery vs. Traditional Open Surgery

Objective: To review the recent trends in methodology for the most frequent oncological surgeries. More specifically, this paper will compare the minimally invasive methods to the conventional open method. It aims to find out whether minimally invasive surgeries are feasible treatments for certain types of cancers.

Methods: A review of retrospective studies searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library etc. was used to identify the studies published on this topic within a period of 6 years. Oncologic outcomes, postoperative complications/outcomes, and intraoperative outcomes were the main variables in the comparison to the surgical methods under review.

Conclusion: Despite the recent controversy with minimally invasive surgery being contraindicated for cervical cancer, it is still an acceptable method for other types of common cancers. However, there are limitations to the approach, and the surgeon should make a prudent selection between minimally invasive and open surgery depending on the type of tumor and patient characteristics. Further studies, especially with randomized control trials, must be conducted.

Hospital robotic use for colorectal cancer care

The use of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer continues to increase. However, not all organizations offer patients the option of robotic intervention. This study seeks to understand organizational characteristics associated with the utilization of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. We conducted a retrospective study of hospitals identified in the United States, State of Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset, and linked data for those hospitals with the American Hospital Association Survey, Area Health Resource File and the Health Community Health Assessment Resource Tool Set. The study population included all robotic surgeries for colorectal cancer patients in 159 hospitals from 2013 to 2015. Logistic regressions identifying organizational, community, and combined community and organizational variables were utilized to determine associations. Results indicate that neither hospital competition nor disease burden in the community was associated with increased odds of robotic surgery use. However, per capita income (OR 1.07 95% CI 1.02, 1.12), average total margin (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.001, 1.02) and large-sized hospitals compared to small hospitals (OR: 5.26, 95% CI 1.13, 24.44) were associated with increased odds of robotic use. This study found that market conditions within the U.S. State of Florida are not primary drivers of hospital use of robotic surgery. The ability for the population to pay for such services, and the hospital resources available to absorb the expense of purchasing the required equipment, appear to be more influential.