Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: cost-benefit analysis in a single-center randomized trial

Colorectal anastomotic leakage: a narrative review of definitions, grading systems, and consequences of leaks

Background

Anastomotic leaks (ALs) are a significant and feared postoperative complication, with incidence of up to 30% despite advances in surgical techniques. With implications such as additional interventions, prolonged hospital stays, and hospital readmission, ALs have important impacts at the level of individual patients and healthcare providers, as well as healthcare systems as a whole. Challenges in developing unified definitions and grading systems for leaks have proved problematic, despite acknowledgement that colorectal AL is a critical issue in intestinal surgery with serious consequences. The aim of this study was to construct a narrative review of literature surrounding definitions and grading systems for ALs, and consequences of this postoperative complication.

Methods

A literature review was conducted by examining databases including PubMed, Web of Science, OVID Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library databases. Searches were performed with the following keywords: anastomosis, anastomotic leak, colorectal, surgery, grading system, complications, risk factors, and consequences. Publications that were retrieved underwent further assessment to ensure other relevant publications were identified and included.

Results

A universally accepted definition and grading system for ALs continues to be lacking, leading to variability in reported incidence in the literature. Additional factors add to variability in estimates, including differences in the anastomotic site and institutional/individual differences in operative technique. Various groups have worked to publish guidelines for defining and grading AL, with the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer (ISGRC/ISREC) definition the current most recommended universal definition for colorectal AL. The burden of AL on patients, healthcare providers, and hospitals is well documented in evidence from leak consequences, such as increased morbidity and mortality, higher reoperation rates, and increased readmission rates, among others.

Conclusions

Colorectal AL remains a significant challenge in intestinal surgery, despite medical advancements. Understanding the progress made in defining and grading leaks, as well as the range of negative outcomes that arise from AL, is crucial in improving patient care, reduce surgical mortality, and drive further advancements in earlier detection and treatment of AL.

First experience in laparoscopic surgery in low and middle income countries: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has reduced morbidity and mortality rates, shorter postoperative recovery periods and lower complication rates than open surgery. It is routine practice in high-income countries and is becoming increasingly common in countries with limited resources. However, introducing laparoscopic surgery in low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC) can be expensive and requires resources, equipment, and trainers.

AIM

To report the challenges and benefits of introducing laparoscopic surgery in LMIC as well as to identify solutions to these challenges for countries with limited finances and resources.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies reporting first experience in laparoscopic surgery in LMIC. Included studies were published between 1996 and 2022 with full text available in English. Exclusion criteria were studies considering only open surgery, ear, nose, and throat, endoscopy, arthroscopy, hysteroscopy, cystoscopy, transplant, or bariatric surgery.

RESULTS

Ten studies out of 3409 screened papers, from eight LMIC were eligible for inclusion in the final analysis, totaling 2497 patients. Most reported challenges were related to costs of equipment and training programmes, equipment problems such as faulty equipment, and access to surgical kits. Training-related challenges were reliance on foreign trainers and lack of locally trained surgeons and theatre staff. The benefits of introducing laparoscopic surgery were economic and clinical, including a reduction in hospital stay, complications, and morbidity/mortality. The introduction of laparoscopic surgery also provided training opportunities for junior doctors.

CONCLUSION

Despite financial and technical challenges, many studies emphasise the overall benefit of introducing laparoscopic surgery in LMICs such as reduced hospital stay and the related lower cost for patients. While many of the clinical centres in LMICs have proposed practical solutions to the challenges reported, more support is critically required, in particular regarding training.

Lean Six Sigma Approach to Improve the Management of Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard technique for gallbladder diseases in both emergency and elective surgery. The incidence of the disease related to an increasingly elderly population coupled with the efficacy and safety of LC treatment resulted in an increase in the frequency of interventions without an increase in surgical mortality. For these reasons, managers implement strategies by which to standardize the process of patients undergoing LC. Specifically, the goal is to ensure, in accordance with the guidelines of the Italian Ministry of Health, a reduction in post-operative length of stay (LOS). In this study, a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) methodological approach was implemented to identify and subsequently investigate, through statistical analysis, the effect that corrective actions have had on the post-operative hospitalization for LC interventions performed in a University Hospital. The analysis of the process, which involved a sample of 478 patients, with an approach guided by the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control (DMAIC) cycle, made it possible to reduce the post-operative LOS from an average of 6.67 to 4.44 days. The most significant reduction was obtained for the 60-69 age group, for whom the probability of using LC is higher than for younger people. The LSS offers a methodological rigor that has allowed us, as already known, to make significant improvements to the process, standardizing the result by limiting the variability and obtaining a total reduction of post-operative LOS of 67%.

C‐reactive protein as an early predictor of anastomotic dehiscence in various types of reconstruction in elective abdominal surgery

Objective

The most important factor in abdominal surgery is the successful healing of the intestinal anastomosis performed. This study aims to evaluate the role of C‐reactive protein (CRP) in predicting anastomotic dehiscence in the first week following surgery.

Methods

The study included 100 patients surgically treated over a period of 1 year. Postoperative (p/o) values of CRP, leukocyte (white blood cells [WBCs]) and body temperature (BT) were measured in relation to the development of p/o complications.

Results

CRP p/o values were significantly higher in patients with complications and proved helpful in predicting p/o complications, while WBC and BT were not. For the development of anastomotic leakage, receiver operating characteristic curve shows the earliest diagnostic accuracy on the third p/o day with the cut‐off value of 115.1 mg/L; however, the largest area under the curve was on the fifth p/o day with a cut‐off value of 59.2 mg/L, a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 61%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 21.9 and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100.

Conclusions

Measurement of p/o CRP values may indicate problematic healing of digestive tract anastomosis before the appearance of clinical signs. High sensitivity and high NPV allow us to rule out p/o complications and anastomotic dehiscence with great certainty and safely discharge these patients from the hospital.

Cost Drivers of Elective Colon and Rectal Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgery is expensive. Few studies have evaluated complications as an economic cost driver, and there is little evidence comparing multiple cost drivers of colorectal surgery to determine the most effective means of reducing total cost.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the effects of surgical techniques, use of enhanced recovery protocols, and presence or absence of complications on the total cost of hospitalization for elective colorectal surgery.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort analysis using data from 2011 to 2018 was performed. The primary end point was a mean cost per hospitalization. The cost was compared between patients who experienced minimally invasive versus open surgeries, enhanced recovery after surgery protocols versus not, and complications versus none.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a university-affiliated teaching hospital in the Northeastern United States.

PATIENTS

Adult patients who have undergone elective colorectal surgery were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome for this study was the mean cost per hospitalization calculated using inpatient cost based on the total cost of the episode of care.

RESULTS

A total of 1039 patients met the criteria for inclusion. The average cost of all hospitalizations was $19,801. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that enhanced recovery protocols substantially lowered the cost of care by $6392 ( p = 0.001), whereas complications increased the cost of care by $16,780 per episode ( p < 0.001). When complications occurred, enhanced recovery protocols reduced the cost by $17,963 ( p = 0.010).

LIMITATIONS

This retrospective cohort study performed at a single institution has inherent limitations, including confounding and selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

For elective colorectal surgery, complications are associated with significantly increased costs. Avoiding complications should be a priority to reduce costs. Enhanced recovery protocols are associated with significantly reduced costs. Surgeons should focus future research efforts on improving protocols and processes that decrease postoperative complications to improve patient outcomes and to reduce costs associated with elective colorectal hospitalizations. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B927 .

FACTORES DE COSTO DE LA CIRUGA ELECTIVA DE COLON Y RECTO UN ANLISIS DE COHORTE RETROSPECTIVE

ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía colorrectal es costosa. Pocos estudios han examinado las complicaciones como un factor de costo económico, y hay poca evidencia que compare múltiples factores de costo de la cirugía colorrectal para determinar los medios más efectivos para reducir el costo total.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tiene como objetivo determinar los efectos de las técnicas quirúrgicas, el uso de protocolos de enhanced recovery y la presencia o ausencia de complicaciones en el costo total de hospitalización por cirugía colorrectal electiva.DISEÑO:Se realizó un análisis retrospectivo de cohortes utilizando data del 2011-2018. El punto principal fue el costo medio por hospitalización. Se comparó el costo entre los pacientes que experimentaron: cirugías mínimamente invasivas versus abiertas, protocolos de enhanced recovery después de la cirugía versus no, y complicaciones versus no.FUENTE DE DATOS:Se consultó la base de datos financiera y contable del hospital y el registro médico electrónico para la obtencion de datos.ENTORNO CLINICO:Este estudio se realizó en un hospital docente afiliado a una universidad en el noreste de los Estados Unidos.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes adultos sometidos a cirugía colorrectal electiva.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado principal de este estudio fue el costo medio por hospitalización calculado utilizando el costo de hospitalización basado en el costo total del episodio de atención.RESULTADOS:Un total de 1.039 pacientes cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. El costo promedio de todas las hospitalizaciones fue de $19801. El análisis multivariante demostró que los protocolos de enhanced recovery redujeron sustancialmente el costo de la atención en $6392 ( p = 0,001), mientras que las complicaciones aumentaron el costo en $16780 por episodio ( p < 0,001). Cuando ocurrieron complicaciones, los protocolos de enhanced recovery redujeron el costo en $17963 ( p = 0,010).LIMITACIONES:Este es un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo realizado en una sola institución y tiene limitaciones inherentes que incluyen confusión y sesgo de selección.CONCLUSIONES:Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B927 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

Cost-effectiveness comparison of minimally invasive, robotic and open approaches in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic (LAP), laparoscopic-assisted (LAPA), hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL), and robotic colorectal surgery using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the cost-effectiveness of comparing the five different approaches in colorectal surgery were included in a literature search until September 2022. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were reported for total costs, surgical costs, operating time, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of surgical approaches into homogeneous clusters. The cophenetic correlation coefficient (cc) was evaluated to identify the most cost-effective clustering method. The primary outcomes assessed were: costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy, measuring total costs against postoperative complications, mortality rate, and LOS, respectively.

RESULTS

22 RCTs with 4239 patients were included. Open surgery had the lowest total costs, surgical costs, and operating time but the longest LOS and most postoperative complications. LOS was significantly decreased in LAP compared to open surgery (OR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.46-0.96). Robotic surgery resulted in the highest total costs, surgical costs, and most extended operative duration but the shortest LOS and lowest mortality. LAPA and robotic surgery were superior in the costs-morbidity analysis. HAL was associated with the worst costs-mortality profile. LAP, LAPA, and HAL were better in terms of costs-efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Overall, LAP and LAPA are the most cost-effective approaches for colorectal surgery in terms of overall postoperative complications, mortality, and LOS.

Not Clearing the Air: Hospital Price Transparency for a Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

INTRODUCTION

In 2019, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) established a new requirement that all hospitals publish information on the standard costs of services provided. Increased price transparency allows patients to compare healthcare costs and make informed decisions about their care. We investigated compliance with this rule with regards to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a commonly performed operation and one of the 70 shoppable services (SSs) included in the CMS requirement, among prominent hospitals in the United States.

METHODS

The 2021-2022 US News "Best Hospitals for Gastroenterology and GI Surgery" was used to identify the top 50 hospitals for gastrointestinal surgery. Each hospital's website was assessed for the presence of a machine-readable file (MRF) as required by CMS. Each MRF was then evaluated for inclusion of all seven required elements: description of item/service, gross charge, payer-specific negotiated charge, deidentified minimum and maximum negotiated charges, discounted cash price, and billing code. The presence of a consumer-friendly display of SSs was also evaluated. The Current Procedural Terminology code 47562 (removal of gallbladder with an endoscope) was used to search for all six required elements: payer-specific negotiated charge, discounted cash price, de-identified minimum and maximum negotiated charges, campus location of the SS, and billing code. The SS display was further evaluated for provision of additional information on ancillary charges, which are recommended but not required. The MRF and SS were also evaluated for accessibility and date of last update. Hospitals were analyzed according to rank. Compliance with CMS requirements was compared between hospitals.

RESULTS

Fifty one hospitals were included. Of these 51 hospitals, one (2%) provided all the required information for both MRF and SS, 44 (86%) did not provide all necessary components of both the MRF and SS, six (12%) had all necessary elements of an MRF only, and two (4%) had all necessary elements of the SS only. The MRF was accessible in 80% (41) of studied hospitals and 76% (39) provided a gross charge but just 35% (18) of hospitals included the discounted cash price. The SS specified location for all hospitals, indicated a billing code in 96% (49), and provided a payer-specific charge in 96% (48), but less often provided de-identified minimum (30; 59%) and maximum (30; 59%) charges. Thirty nine (76%) hospitals reported that the listed price included an ancillary charge. There was no significant difference between hospitals in having all required elements of both the MRF and SS or the MRF only or SS only.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals are providing healthcare consumers with standard charge information, although with significant variation in what is disclosed. There is no association between hospital reputation and provision of standard charge information.

Transversus abdominis plane block for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of transversus abdominis plane block (TAP) on pain management after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (CRS) remains unclear since the only relevant meta-analysis on this topic did not separate laparoscopic CRS from open CRS. The aim of the study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of TAP with non-TAP in patients undergoing laparoscopic CRS.

METHODS

Four databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic using relevant keywords. Two authors independently completed evidence selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal. Available data were pooled in the random-effects model, and point estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported for postoperative pain at rest and on coughing, opioid consumption, length of hospital stay, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 14 RCTs (n = 1216) contributed to the present synthesis. Pooled result showed that patients in the TAP group had lower pain at rest than those in the non-TAP group at postoperative 2-h (mean difference [MD] = -1.42; P < 0.05), 4-h (MD = -0.97; P < 0.05), 12-h (MD = -0.75; P < 0.05), and 24-h (MD = -0.61; P < 0.05). Patients in the TAP group also had lower postoperative pain on coughing than those in the non-TAP group on the first day (MD = -1.02; P < 0.05). Moreover, TAP had lesser postoperative opioid consumption than non-TAP (standardized mean difference, -0.26; P < 0.05; I-square = 20%), and there were non-significant differences in hospital stay and adverse event between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative TAP is a safe and feasible pain management for laparoscopic CRS, particularly it is recommended when patient-controlled analgesia is not delivered. Therefore, laparoscopic TAP block might be a favorable administered strategy.

Need for nursing care after laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery: a claims data analysis in German primary care

Purpose

Our study analyzes the influence of minimally invasive vs. open surgery on the postoperative need for nursing care in patients with colorectal carcinoma. Colorectal cancer is an age-related disease, and oncologic surgery is increasingly performed in elderly patients. Long-term effects of the procedural choice on patients’ self-sufficiency and autonomy have not been scientifically addressed so far.

Methods

Multivariable logistic regression models based on claims data from a statutory health insurer (AOK, Baden-Württemberg, Germany) were applied to assess potential risk factors for assignment patients to a nursing care level, a German scale to categorize individual need for nursing care, at 12 and 36 months after colorectal cancer surgery.

Results

A total of 3996 patients were eligible to be included in the analysis. At 36 months postoperatively, 44 of 427 (10.3%) patients after minimally invasive colon cancer surgery and 231 of 1287 (17.9%) patients after open procedure were newly graded into a nursing care level (OR = 0.62, 95%CI = 0.44–0.90, p = 0.010). Thirty-four of 251 (13.5%) patients receiving minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery compared to 142 of 602 (23.6%) patients after open approach were newly assigned to a nursing care level (OR = 0.53, 95%CI = 0.34–0.81, p = 0.003).

Conclusions

Laparoscopically assisted resection of colorectal cancer seems to be superior in preserving physical autonomy of elderly patients with colorectal cancer.

Challenge and future of liver and pancreatic robotic surgery. Analysis of 64 cases in a specialized unit

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has proven effective in certain surgical procedures. However, in liver and pancreatic surgery (HBP) its use is still rare. The initial experience in HBP robotic surgery of a specialized unit of a tertiary hospital is presented.

METHOD

The results of patients undergoing robotic HBP surgery between April 2018 and October 2020 have been prospectively studied. The data analyzed correspond to demographic data, surgical techniques performed, associated morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

64 patients were operated, corresponding to 35 hepatectomies (major [6.7%], anatomic [52.9%], limited [34.4%], cystectomies [3%] and marsupialization [3%]), 29 pancreatectomies (distal [48.2%], central [6.9%], cephalic [13.8%], enucleations [24.1%], ampullectomies [3.5%] and duodenal resections [3.5%]). In liver surgery the mean operative time was 204.4 min (100-265 min), the median postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo scale was one (1-4), the mean blood losses 166.7 mL (100-300 mL), there was no conversion and the mean postoperative stay was four days (2-14 days). In pancreatic surgery, the mean operative time was 243.8 min (125-460 min), the median of postoperative complications was two (1-4), blood loss of 202.3 mL (100-500 mL) associated to a conversion rate 17.8% and an average stay of seven days (3-23 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic HBP surgery is safe and feasible. It is suggested that its use facilitates parenchymal sparing surgery, access to posterior liver segments and anastomosis in pancreatic reconstruction compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Short-term outcomes in robot-assisted compared to laparoscopic colon cancer resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery. However, evidence for the implementation of robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer is sparse. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted colon surgery (RCS) for cancer compared to laparoscopic colon surgery (LCS).

Methods

Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched between January 1, 2005 and October 2, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Non-original literature was excluded. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage rate, conversion to open surgery, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were surgical efficacy and postoperative morbidity. We evaluated risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I quality assessment tools. We performed a pooled analysis of primary and secondary endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed by I², and possible causes were explored by sensitivity- and meta-regression analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plots and Eggers linear regression test. The level of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

Results

Twenty studies enrolling 13,799 patients (RCS 1740 (12.6%) and LCS 12,059 (87.4%) were included in the meta-analysis that demonstrated RCS was superior regarding: anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.94]), conversion (OR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.41]), overall complication rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.73, 1.00]) and time to regular diet (MD =  − 0.29, 95% CI [− 0.56, 0.02]). LCS proved to have a shortened operative time compared to RCS (MD = 42.99, 95% CI [28.37, 57.60]). Level of evidence was very low according to GRADE.

Conclusion

RCS showed advantages in colonic cancer surgery regarding surgical efficacy and morbidity compared to LCS despite a predominant inclusion of non-RCT with serious risk of bias assessment and a very low level of evidence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08782-7.

Cost Analysis of Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection vs. Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery for Rectal Neoplasms

Despite the increasing application of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for rectal lesions, the cost of the equipment may play a role in a hospital's hesitancy to invest in the platform. This study compares the cost of TEM to laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR). Patients who underwent laparoscopic LAR (n = 24) for rectal neoplasm between 2006 and 2014 were case-matched based on sex, age, comorbidities, lesion size and location to patients who underwent TEM at a busy secondary care urban hospital. Procedure-related costs and costs associated with readmissions for complications and related subsequent surgeries in the first 3 years were calculated. There were 42 hospital admissions for 24 LAR patients, totalling 326 hospital days. For 24 TEM patients, there were 25 hospital admissions, totalling 56 hospital days. Subsequent operations for LAR patients included 2 washout and diverting ileostomies (8%), 2 adhesionolysis (8%), 4 ventral hernia repairs (16%) and 11 ileostomy reversals (46%). In the TEM group, there was one operation for recurrence (4%). The mean cost of LAR, including all related hospital costs in the subsequent 3 years, was CAD 14,851 (95% CI: CAD 10,124-19,579). The mean cost of TEM was CAD 2449 (95% CI: CAD 2133-2767; p < 0.0001), with a savings of CAD 12,402 per patient. TEM for rectal neoplasm is associated with significantly lower hospital costs, which far outweigh the costs of acquiring and maintaining the technology.

Challenge and future of liver and pancreatic robotic surgery. Analysis of 64 cases in a specialized unit

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has proven effective in certain surgical procedures. However, in liver and pancreatic surgery (HBP) its use is still rare. The initial experience in HBP robotic surgery of a specialized unit of a tertiary hospital is presented.

METHOD

The results of patients undergoing robotic HBP surgery between April 2018 and October 2020 have been prospectively studied. The data analyzed correspond to demographic data, surgical techniques performed, associated morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

64 patients were operated, corresponding to 35 hepatectomies (major [6.7%], anatomic [52.9%], limited [34.4%], cystectomies [3%] and marsupialization [3%]), 29 pancreatectomies (distal [48.2%], central [6.9%], cephalic [13.8%], enucleations [24.1%], ampullectomies [3.5%] and duodenal resections [3.5%]). In liver surgery the mean operative time was 204.4 minutes (100-265 min), the median postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo scale was one (1-4), the mean blood losses 166.7 mL (100-300 mL), there was no conversion and the mean postoperative stay was four days (2-14 days). In pancreatic surgery, the mean operative time was 243.8 minutes (125-460 min), the median of postoperative complications was two (1-4), blood loss of 202.3 mL (100-500 mL) associated to a conversion rate 17.8% and an average stay of seven days (3-23 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic HBP surgery is safe and feasible. It is suggested that its use facilitates parenchymal sparing surgery, access to posterior liver segments and anastomosis in pancreatic reconstruction compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open radical resection for transverse colon cancer: evidence from multi-center databases

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic approach is still a controversy for transverse colon cancer. Our investigation aimed to evaluate the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open radical resection for transverse colon cancer based on evidence from multi-center databases.

METHODS

416 patients with transverse colon cancer undergoing radical surgery were analyzed including 181 laparoscopic resections and 235 open resections from January 2004 to May 2017 based on multi-center databases. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

No statistical differences regarding the baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups except the procedure type. Compared with open approach, laparoscopic approach was associated with statistically longer operation time (209.96 vs. 173.31 min, P = 0.002), significantly shorter time to soft food intake (4.73 vs. 6.01 days, P = 0.034), and shorter postoperative hospitalization (12.05 vs. 14.44 days, P = 0.001). In terms of oncologic outcomes, laparoscopic resection was correlated with statistically more lymph node retrieval (13.52 vs. 15.91, P = 0.002) and similar 5-year overall survival (91.2% vs. 89.1%, P = 0.356) and disease-free survival (89.6% vs. 86.0%, P = 0.873), compared with open resection.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with transverse colon cancer, laparoscopic approach can achieve several short-term advantages without decreasing long-term oncologic survival.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Pelvic Exenteration in Primary Colorectal Cancer

Background:

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pelvic exenteration is not a well-established technique. The aim was to assess the safety and feasibility of MIS for pelvic exenteration in locally advanced primary colorectal cancer and to compare the perioperative outcomes with open surgery.

Methods:

This is a retrospective analysis of patients, who had undergone pelvic exenteration for primary colorectal adenocarcinoma from May 2013 to July 2018. The short-term outcomes like perioperative details and histopathological characteristics were compared between the two groups.

Results:

MIS was performed in 23 patients and open pelvic exenteration was carried out in 72 patients. The mean operative time was significantly more in the MIS group (640 vs. 432 min, p = 0.00). The intraoperative blood loss (900 vs. 1550 ml, p = 0.00) and the requirement for blood transfusion (170 vs. 250 ml, p = 0.03) was significantly less in the MIS group. The overall morbidity (60% vs. 49%, p = 0.306) was comparable between the two groups. The median length of hospital stay in the MIS group was 11 d, compared to 12 d in the open surgery group, (p = 0.634). The rate of R0 resection (87% vs. 89%, p = 0.668) was comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion:

MIS is feasible and safe for total pelvic exenteration and posterior exenteration in carefully selected locally advanced primary colorectal cancer, when performed by an experienced surgical team in high volume centers. An R0 resection with adequate margin can be achieved with good perioperative outcomes in MIS. Long-term oncological outcomes would require further follow up to confirm.

The Introduction of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: Can It Improve Hospital Economics?

INTRODUCTION

Clinical benefits of laparoscopic surgery are well established, but evidence for financial benefits is limited. This study aimed to compare the financial impact of the introduction of laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

This study included patients who underwent colorectal surgery between January 2010 and 2015. We collected a range of financial data and divided the patients into 2 groups. Primary outcome was total cost defined by surgical-related costs.

RESULTS

A total of 1,246 patients were included, of which 440 surgeries were performed laparoscopically. The total median cost of laparoscopy was higher compared to open surgery (EUR 4,665 vs. EUR 4,268, p = 0.001). Laparoscopy was associated with higher equipment costs (EUR 857 vs. EUR 232, p < 0.001), longer operating time (3.2 vs. 2.5 hours, p < 0.001), and more readmissions (10.9 vs. 8.5%, p < 0.001). However, after adjusting for heterogeneity, no difference was found in total cost. Surgical-related costs were counterbalanced by lower costs associated with shorter median hospital stay (6 vs. 9 days, p < 0.001), less morbidity (37.3 vs. 55.1%, p < 0.001), and less mortality (1.8 vs. 5.6%, p = 0.013) for laparoscopy.

CONCLUSION

During the introduction of laparoscopy for colorectal surgery, no significant differences were found in total cost between laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. However, favorable postoperative outcomes were achieved with laparoscopic surgery.

Laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: Economic and clinical outcomes in the Brazilian healthcare

Laparoscopic surgery has become the preferred surgical approach of several colorectal conditions. However, the economic results of this are quite controversial. The degree of adoption of laparoscopic technology, as well as the aptitude of the surgeons, can have an influence not only in the clinical outcomes but also in the total procedure cost. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgeries, compared to open procedures in Brazil.All patients who underwent elective colorectal surgeries between January 2012 and December 2013 were eligible to the retrospective cohort. The considered follow-up period was within 30 days from the index procedure. The outcomes evaluated were the length of stay, blood transfusion, intensive care unit admission, in-hospital mortality, use of antibiotics, the development of anastomotic leakage, readmission, and the total hospital costs including re-admissions.Two hundred eighty patients, who met the eligibility criteria, were included in the analysis. Patients in the laparoscopic group had a shorter length of stay in comparison with the open group (6.02 ± 3.86 vs 9.86 ± 16.27, P < .001). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. The total costs were similar between the 2 groups, in the multivariate analysis (generalized linear model ratio of means 1.20, P = .074). The cost predictors were the cancer diagnosis and age.Laparoscopic colorectal surgery presents a 17% decrease in the duration of the hospital stay without increasing the total hospitalization costs. The factors associated with increased hospital costs were age and the diagnosis of cancer.

Colorectal Services in Covid-19 Times: Minimally Invasive Surgery and Enhanced Recovery, the Need of the Hour

The health services across the world have been deeply impacted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic which has resulted in diversion of resources to testing, isolating and treating COVID-19 patients. This meant cutting down resources and manpower away of various healthcare facilities and severely hampering the functioning of various cancer services across the world. It is however, important to understand, cancer itself is a life-threatening condition, and there is a need to continue running cancer care services, at least for those who needed the most. Various clinical societies have put forward guidelines and protocols to help continue surgical services during the pandemic. The role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was initially questioned at the start of the pandemic, however gradually increasing evidence favored MIS as it reduced hospital stay and complication. Enhanced recovery programs which have been introduced to various fields of surgery to improve outcomes and reduce hospital stay. It plays an essential role in times like this, where the optimal usage of minimal resources is essential. We embraced these methods to ensure safety of our patients and staff and at the same time provide the highest standards of care. Here we are presenting our experience of running a colorectal surgical unit during these difficult times with emphasis on promotion of minimally invasive surgery, at the epicenter of the pandemic in India.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic and open surgery in routine Swedish care for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has been shown in clinical trials to be effective regarding short-term outcomes and oncologically safe. Health economic analyses have been performed early in the learning curve when adoption of laparoscopic surgery was not extensive. This cost-effectiveness analysis evaluates laparoscopic versus open colorectal cancer surgery in Swedish routine care.

METHODS

In this national retrospective cohort study, data were retrieved from the Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry. Clinical effectiveness, resource use and unit costs were derived from this and other sources with nationwide coverage. The study period was 2013 and 2014 with 1 year follow-up. Exclusion criterion comprised cT4-tumors. Clinical effectiveness was estimated in a composite endpoint of all-cause resource-consuming events in inpatient care, readmissions and deaths up to 90 days postoperatively. Up to 1 year, events predefined as related to the primary surgery were included. Costs included resource-consuming events, readmissions and sick leave and were estimated for both the society and healthcare. Multivariable regression analyses were used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between the groups.

RESULTS

After exclusion of cT4 tumors, the cohort included 7707 patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery: 6060 patients in the open surgery group and 1647 patients in the laparoscopic group. The mean adjusted difference in clinical effectiveness between laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery was 0.23 events (95% CI 0.12 to 0.33). Mean adjusted differences in costs (open minus laparoscopic surgery) were $4504 (95% CI 2257 to 6799) and $4480 (95% CI 2739 to 6203) for the societal and the healthcare perspective respectively. In both categories, resource consuming events in inpatient care were the main driver of the results.

CONCLUSION

In a national cohort, laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery was associated with both superior outcomes for clinical effectiveness and cost versus open surgery.

Effect of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer with N. O. S. E. on recovery and prognosis of patients

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) on the recovery and quality of life (QOL) of patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ninety-two eligible patients were randomly assigned into two groups: the traditional laparoscopy group (L group, n = 46) and the laparoscopic transanal specimen extraction group (NL group, n = 46). General data, surgery-related indicators, postoperative recovery, and prognosis were compared and analyzed between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 46 patients in each group were enrolled in this study. The general data and surgery-related indicators were comparable between the two groups (all p > .05). There were no significant differences in the time of first flatus, bleeding, obstruction, constipation, and infectious complications between the two groups (all p > .05). The differences in the incidence of postoperative diarrhea, pain degree, and satisfaction on the aesthetics of the abdominal wall showed significant differences (χ² = 6.133, p = .013; χ² = 12.116, p = .017; χ² = 13.463, p = .004). The postoperative follow-up time was 3-53 months. There were no significant differences in the postoperative hospital stay, medical costs, hospital readmission rate, incidence of incisional hernia, overall survival, disease-free survival, and QOL between the two groups (all p > .05). Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery with NOSE for eligible patients with CRC was a feasible choice.

Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) versus robotic right colectomy (RRC) using homogeneous subgroup analyses for extra-corporeal anastomosis (EA) and intra-corporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2020 for prospective or retrospective studies comparing LRC versus RRC on at least one short- or long-term outcome. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes included operative and pathological results, survival, and total costs. LRC and RRC were compared using three homogeneous subgroups: without distinction by the type of anastomosis, EA only, and IA only. Pooled data analyses were performed using mean difference (MD) and random effects model.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven of 448 studies were selected. The included patients were 21,397 for the LRC group and 2796 for the RRC group. Regardless for the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter LOS, lower blood loss, lower conversion rate, shorter time to flatus, and lower overall complication rate compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the EA subgroup, RRC showed similar LOS, longer operative time, and higher costs compared with LRC, the other outcomes being similar. In the IA subgroup, RRC showed shorter LOS and longer operative time compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Most included articles are retrospective, providing low-quality evidence and limiting conclusions. The more frequent use of the IA seems to explain the advantages of RRC over LRC.

Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatment, our Experience

Introduction:

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the male and female population. Surgical treatment of colorectal cancer is based on tumor resection and removal of associated lymph glands.

Aim:

The aim of the paper is to present data from a five-year retrospective study of the surgical treatment of colorectal cancer at the Clinic for General and Abdominal Surgery at the Clinical Center of the University of Sarajevo.

Methods:

This is a retrospective five-year clinical trial (2014-2018) of patients with and surgically treated for colorectal cancer at the Clinic for General and Abdominal Surgery at the Clinical Center of Sarajevo University.

Results:

In the 2014-2018 period, n = 11 172 patients were hospitalized at the Clinic, of which n = 732 were surgically treated for colorectal cancer. 69.80% were operated in an elective program. 30.20% were made as emergencies. 51.09% were male patients and 48.36% were female patients. 97.20% were made by open technique. 2.10% operated by minimally invasive procedure. the most common type of colon tumor is Adenocarcinomas are the most common with 79%.

Conclusions:

Better prevention and early detection are required to reduce the incidence of patients, which ultimately leads to more effective treatment and longer survival of colon cancer patients. Operative surgical principles must be adapted to modern trends, minimally invasive procedures (laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery).

Safety and Feasibility of a Lower-Cost Stapler in Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic staplers are integral to bariatric surgery. Their pricing significantly impacts the overall cost of procedures. An independent device company has designed a stapler handle and single-use reloads for cross-compatibility and equivalency with existing manufacturers, at a lower cost.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to demonstrate non-inferior function and cross-compatibility of a newly introduced stapler handle and reloads compared to our institution's current stapling system in a large animal survival study.

SETTING

University-affiliated animal research facility, USA.

METHODS

Matched small bowel anastomoses were created in four pigs, one with each stapler (a total of two per animal). After 14 days, investigators blinded to stapler type evaluated the anastomoses grossly and microscopically. Each anastomosis was scored on multiple measures of healing. Individual parameters were added for a global "healing score."

RESULTS

Clinical stapler function and gross quality of anastomoses were similar between stapler groups. Individual scores for anastomotic ulceration, reepithelialization, granulation tissue, mural healing, eosinophilic infiltration, serosal inflammation, and microscopic adherences were also statistically similar. The mean "healing scores" were equal. While this study was underpowered for subtle differences, safe and reliable performance in large animals still supports the feasibility of introducing new devices into human use.

CONCLUSIONS

The new stapler system delivers a similar technical performance and is cross-compatible with currently marketed stapling devices. An equivalent quality device at a lower price point should enable case cost reduction, helping to maintain hospital case margin and procedure value in the face of potentially declining reimbursement. This device may provide a safe and functional alternative to currently used laparoscopic surgical staplers.

Multicenter surveillance study of surgical site infection and its risk factors in radical resection of colon or rectal carcinoma

Background

Colorectal surgery is associated with high rates of surgical site infection (SSI). We investigated SSI in radical resection of colon or rectal carcinoma and its epidemiological distribution in 26 hospitals in China.

Methods

We conducted prospective surveillance of patients who underwent radical resection of colon or rectal carcinoma in 26 selected hospitals from January 2015 to June 2016.An information system monitored all of the surgical inpatients. Infection control professionals observed the inpatients with suspected SSI who had been screened by the system at the bedside. The infection status of the incisions was followed up by telephone 1 month after the operation.

Results

In total, 5729 patients were enrolled for the two operations; SSIs occurred in 206 patients, and the infection rate was 3.60%. The incidence of SSI after radical resection of rectal carcinoma (5.12%; 119/2323) was 2.1 times higher than that after radical resection of colon carcinoma (2.55%; 87/3406) (P < 0.0001). Additionally, in the colon versus rectal groups, the rate of superficial incisional SSI was 0.94% versus 2.28% (P < 0.0001), the rate of deep incisional SSI was 0.56% versus 1.11% (P = 0.018), and the rate of organ space SSI was 1.06% versus 1.72% (P = 0.031), respectively. The most common pathogens causing SSIs after radical resection of colon carcinoma were Escherichia coli (21/38) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (5/38). Escherichia coli (24/65) and Enterococcus spp. (14/65) were the two most common pathogens in the rectal group. The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that only the operating time and number of hospital beds were common independent risk factors for SSIs after the two types of surgery.

Conclusion

This multicenter study showed that there were significant differences in the incidence of SSIs, three types of SSIs, and some risk factors between radical resection of colon carcinoma and rectal carcinoma.

A meta-analysis of laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery in the treatment of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to explore the overall effect and safety of anterior laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery for patients with colorectal cancer based on eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially the difference in the postoperative incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT).

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were searched based on keywords to identify eligible studies before February 2018. Only RCTs were eligible. We analyzed the main outcomes using the relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) along with 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, we analyzed a total of 24 studies with 4592 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group and 3865 patients in the open surgery group. The results indicated that compared with the open surgery, laparoscopic surgery significantly decreased estimated blood loss (SMD: -1.14, 95%CI: -1.70 to -0.57), hospital stay (SMD: -1.12, 95%CI: -1.76 to -0.47), postoperative mortality (RR: 0.60, 95%CI: 0.41-0.86) and postoperative complication (RR: 0.83, 95%CI: 0.72-0.95). However, the operative time (WMD: 40.46, 95%CI: 35.94-44.9) was statistically higher in the laparoscopic surgery group than the open surgery group, and there was no significant difference in the incidence of DVT between the 2 groups (RR: 0.96, 95%CI: 0.46-2.02).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery is superior to open surgery for patients with colorectal cancer. But the 2 surgeries showed no significant difference in the incidence of DVT.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Transverse Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The survival benefits, oncological adequacy, effectiveness, and safety of laparoscopic transverse colectomy (LTC) were compared with that of open transverse colectomy (OTC) using a meta-analysis.

METHODS

EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane library, and Google scholar databases were searched for the last 20 years. Meta-analyses were performed using both fixed-effects and random-effects models. Five-year disease-free survival and overall survival were estimated using the inverse variance hazard ratio method.

RESULTS

No survival benefits were detected between the two LTC and OTC cohorts. OTC showed shorter operative time by 38 min compared to LTC [mean difference (MD) = 38(15.23-60.77), p = 0.001]. However, LTC was associated with earlier postoperative recovery. The time to flatus and time to oral intake for LTC were MD = -1.12(-1.68 to -0.55, p = 0.001) and MD = -1.57(-2.38 to -0.76, p = 0.001), respectively. In addition, LTC was associated with a shorter hospital stay by 4.5 days [MD = -4.64(-7.52 to -1.75), p = 0.002].

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to OTC, LTC provides similar survival benefits, earlier postoperative recovery, and shorter hospital stay by 4.5 days.

Economic Cost Analysis Related to Complications in General and Digestive Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to assess the impact on economic costs and length of stay (LOS) of postoperative complications.

METHODS

5,822 records from BMDS (2014-2015) are included. A descriptive, univariate and multivariate study evaluated the correlation between complications, Clavien-Dindo grade and vacation periods with LOS and economic costs, based on a full-cost model, aggregated by DRG.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Mean cost per stay was €676.71, and €4,309.02 per episode. Complications appeared in 639 patients (11%). Admission to ICU was required in 203 patients, re-operation in 134 and re-admission in 243, while 66 patients died (1.1%). Complications caused significantly longer LOS (20.08 vs 5.48 days) and higher economic cost (€11,670.31 vs €3,354.12); infectious complications were the most frequent and respiratory the most expensive (€20,428.53), together with ICU admission (€20,242.66). Clavien-Dindo grade correlated with greater LOS and costs (except gradev). During vacation periods, complications and LOS are increased, but costs of these complications and LOS did not differ significantly from complications detected in non-vacation periods.

Oncological outcome following laparoscopic versus open surgery for cancer in the transverse colon: a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

The literature on transverse colonic cancer resection is sparse. The optimal surgical approach for this disease is thus unknown. This study aimed to examine laparoscopic versus open surgery for transverse colonic cancer.

METHODS

This study was a nationwide, retrospective cohort study of all patients registered with a transverse colonic cancer in Denmark between 2010 and 2013. Data were obtained from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group, the Danish Pathology Registry, Danish National Patient Registry, and patients' records. Main outcome measures were surgical resection plane, lymph node yield, and long-term cancer recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

In total, 357 patients were included. Non-mesocolic resection was more frequent with laparoscopic compared with open resection (adjusted odds ratio 2.44, 95% CI 1.29-4.60, P = 0.006). Median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher after open compared with laparoscopic resection (22 versus 19, P = 0.03). Non-mesocolic resection (adjusted hazard ratio 2.45, 95% CI 1.25-4.79, P = 0.01) and increasing tumor stage (P < 0.001) were factors associated with recurrence. Cancer recurrence was significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 4.32, 95% CI 2.75-6.79, P < 0.001). Overall mortality was, however, not associated with the surgical approach or surgical plane.

CONCLUSIONS

Although associated with a lower rate of mesocolic resection plane and fewer lymph nodes harvested, laparoscopic surgery for transverse colonic cancers led to similar long-term results compared with open resection.

Assessing the economic advantage of laparoscopic vs. open approaches for colorectal cancer by a propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSES

This study investigated the surgical outcomes and potential economic advantage of open vs. laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer using a propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

We examined the surgical and economic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic (N = 127) and open surgery (N = 253) for colorectal cancer and then compared these outcomes in two groups (N = 103 each) using a propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

Compared to open surgery, the laparoscopic approach was associated with a significantly lower overall morbidity rate (14 vs. 40%; P < 0.001) and shorter mean (± standard deviation) postoperative hospital stay (12.6 ± 8.3 vs. 16.8 ± 9.9 days, respectively; P = 0.001). Despite generating higher mean surgical costs (Japanese yen) (985,000 ± 215,000 vs. 812,000 ± 222,000 yen; P < 0.001), utilizing a laparoscopic approach significantly reduced the non-surgical costs (773,000 ± 440,000 vs. 1075,000 ± 508,000 yen; P < 0.001). The mean total cost of laparoscopic-assisted surgery (1758,000 ± 576,000 yen) was decreased by approximately 130,000 yen compared with open surgery (1886,000 ± 619,000 yen), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.125).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is advantageous in reducing morbidity and facilitating an early discharge and does not increase hospital costs. These findings are consistent with the general consensus supporting the benefits of laparoscopic surgery as a minimally invasive approach.

Case Selection for Laparoscopic Reversal of Hartmann's Procedure

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure offers reduced morbidity compared with open surgery while improving reversal rates. However, it is one of the most technically challenging operations in minimally invasive colorectal surgery, with further < 20% of the reversal procedures being attempted laparoscopically. Complications related to late conversion to open surgery may suggest a selective use of the laparoscopic approach for Hartmann's reversal in a subgroup of patients: The aim of this study is to systematically investigate the literature to identify the ideal case for a laparoscopic approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were extracted from a systematic review of the literature of Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials. Subgroup analysis to identify suitable patients for laparoscopic surgery included age at surgery, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, indication for the index Hartmann's procedure (HP), interval time to reversal from the index HP, conversion to open surgery, and temporary ileostomy rate.

RESULTS

A total of 862 patients were included, with 403 cases performed laparoscopically. Conversion to open surgery occurred in 65 patients (mean 16.1%). The indication for the HP showed a trend toward more benign patients included in the laparoscopic group, and the interval time between the index Hartmann's procedure and its reversal was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group with a trend toward a higher rate of temporary ileostomy in patients undergoing an open procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' selection can explain these differences, with more complex disease operated via an open approach. Nevertheless, future studies are needed to demonstrate an increasing number of reversals attempted laparoscopically in high-volume centers.

Cost comparison of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy in colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colectomy has been shown to be safe, oncologically comparable, and clinically beneficial over open colectomy for colon cancer, but utilization remains low. Objectives To evaluate the cost of laparoscopic colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective claims data analysis using the 2012 and 2013 Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounter Database. The denominator population consisted of individuals who had commercial insurance coverage in all months of 2012 and >1 month in 2013 and pharmacy coverage throughout eligibility. The study population included individuals aged 18-64 years who were identified with colon cancer in 2013 and underwent an elective inpatient open colectomy or laparoscopic colectomy between January and November 2013. The cost and re-admission rate of open vs laparoscopic colectomy were compared after risk, adjusting for comorbidities, demographics, and geographic region.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1299 elective inpatient colon cancer colectomies were performed (open, n = 558; laparoscopic, n = 741). After risk adjustment, the laparoscopic vs open group was shown to have lower re-admission rates (6.61 and 10.93 per 100 cases, respectively, p = .0165), lower average re-admission costs ($1676 and $3151, respectively, p = .0309), and lower 30-day post-discharge healthcare utilization costs ($4842 and $7121, respectively, p = .0047). Average allowed cost for the combined inpatient and 30-day post-discharge period was lower for laparoscopic vs open colectomy cases ($36,395 and $44,226, respectively, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The cost of laparoscopic colectomy was found to be statistically significantly less than that of open colectomy in patients undergoing elective surgery for colon cancer.

A critical appraisal of the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic colorectal surgery for oncological and non-oncological resections

The aim of this study was to critically appraise the cost effectiveness of the laparoscopic colorectal (LCRS) surgery using published randomised, control trials (RCTs). Published RCTs comparing the cost effectiveness of LCRS with conventional open surgery were selected from the search of standard electronic databases and the extracted data were analysed using the statistical software RevMan 5.3. Seven RCTs on 2197 patients reported the cost effectiveness of the LCRS. There was significant heterogeneity (τ ² = 161,772.25, χ ² = 166.69, df = 6, p = 0.00001, I ² = 96%) among included randomised, controlled trials. In the random effects model analysis (MD 320.37, 95% CI -38.21, 678.95, z = 1.75, p < 0.08), the LCRS was costing £320.37 more than open colorectal resection but it failed to reach the statistical significance indicating that LCRS is as much cost effective as the open approach. LCRS is a cost effective intervention and should be offered routinely to all patients requiring colorectal resections provided the resources and expertise are available.

Transumbilical abdominal incision for laparoscopic colorectal surgery does not increase the risk of postoperative surgical site infection

PURPOSE

Besides antibiotic prophylaxis, antiseptic skin preparation is an important measure to prevent surgical site infection (SSI). No reports have detailed the relationship between SSI and umbilical microflora following laparoscopic colorectal cancer with a transumbilical longitudinal incision.

METHODS

Risk factors and the rate of SSI were investigated in 453 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection over a 3-year period. Microbiological samples were collected from the umbilicus and SSI areas.

RESULTS

After laparoscopic procedure, we observed SSIs in approximately 5% of cases, with superficial SSI in 15 (3.3%) patients and organ/space SSIs 7 (1.5%). In univariate analysis, preoperative albumin (Alb) value and anastomosis of enterocolostomy were significantly associated with superficial SSI development. Also, age, blood loss, stoma, tumor site (rectum), and Hartmann/abdominal perineal resection (APR) were significant risk factors for organ/space SSI. In multivariate analysis, the preoperative Alb value was the most significant factor associated with a predisposition to superficial SSI. The bacteria detected in SSI were mostly different from those at wound closure. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria were included in organ/space SSI all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

SSI development with laparoscopic surgery reportedly occurs in about 3-15% cases. The SSI rate in this study and other reports was comparable. Using small transumbilical longitudinal incision in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is less likely to cause SSI when sufficient control measures are enacted, even though the umbilicus contains resident bacteria in abundance.

Isolated rectal cancer surgery: a 2007-2014 population study based on a large administrative database

Rectal resection is technically one of the most demanding laparoscopic procedures, requiring additional training and expertise of both surgeons and institutions. The literature has shown that laparoscopic procedures can be appropriate for the treatment of rectal cancer (RC), in terms of safety, outcome and efficiency, but results may not always be directly transferable to the general population. This study aimed to investigate the use of laparoscopic rectal cancer resections in a north-eastern Italian region (the Veneto) and to see how the characteristics of patients and hospitals are associated with the use of laparoscopy. This was a retrospective cohort study based on administrative data collected from 2007 to 2014 in the Veneto region (north-east Italy). In the period considered (2007-2014), 4953 rectal resections were performed for RC in Veneto hospitals, accounting for 35% of the total 14,243 surgical procedures involving the rectum, and resulting in 76,739 days in hospital [mean length of stay-post-operative (MLOS) 15.5 ± 11.1 days]. Patients were a mean 67.9 ± 11.7 years old (68 ± 12.7 for women, 67.9 ± 11 for men), while the subgroup of patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures was on average 2 years younger (66.5 ± 11.8 vs 68.8 ± 11.5; p < 0.05). The four main findings of this study are: (1) the increasing rates of laparoscopic procedures for RC resection at all the hospitals in our geographical area, rising up to 52% in 2014. This is probably related to not only to availability of better equipment but surely to a growing expertise of surgeons; (2) the esteem of proportion of laparoscopically treated RC; (3) the significant difference between the laparoscopic and open surgical approach in terms of mean length of hospital stay after RC resection, making the laparoscopic approach cost-effective generally speaking; and (4) the disparities in hospitals' use of laparoscopy by patients' age group: Laparoscopic surgery is safe also in the elderly population but it is not so widely offers in Veneto Region hospitals, and it's probably due to the lack of experience about this approach in frail/old patients.

Impact of laparoscopic versus open surgery on hospital costs for colon cancer: a population-based retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopy is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with colon cancer. The study objective is to estimate the difference in hospital costs between laparoscopic and open colon cancer surgery.

DESIGN

Population-based retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

All acute hospitals of the National Health System in England.

POPULATION

A total of 55 358 patients aged 30 and over with a primary diagnosis of colon cancer admitted for planned (elective) open or laparoscopic major resection between April 2006 and March 2013.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Inpatient hospital costs during index admission and after 30 and 90 days following the index admission.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching was used to create comparable exposed and control groups. The hospital cost of an index admission was estimated to be £1933 (95% CI 1834 to 2027; p<0.01) lower among patients who underwent laparoscopic resection. After including the first unplanned readmission following index admission, laparoscopy was £2107 (95% CI 2000 to 2215; p<0.01) less expensive at 30 days and £2202 (95% CI 2092 to 2316; p<0.01) less expensive at 90 days. The difference in cost was explained by shorter hospital stay and lower readmission rates in patients undergoing minimal access surgery. The use of laparoscopic colon cancer surgery increased 4-fold between 2006 and 2012 resulting in a total cost saving in excess of £29.3 million for the National Health Service (NHS).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is associated with lower hospital costs than open surgery in elective patients with colon cancer suitable for both interventions.

Cost implications and oncological outcomes for laparoscopic versus open surgery for right hemicolectomy

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies have suggested that laparoscopic surgery for colorectal resection confers a cost benefit compared with open surgery. These studies have considered a wide range of colorectal operations together rather than focusing on a single procedure. Our study compared direct clinical costs for laparoscopic versus open right hemicolectomy.

METHODS

Clinicopathological data and cost of treatment for all patients who underwent a right hemicolectomy between 2012 and 2013 were collected. The primary outcome was total cost of treatment. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, operative time and morbidity. The minimum follow-up duration was 12 months. Costs for laparoscopic and open surgery for elective resection alone were compared. Further analyses were performed comparing emergency cases with elective cases and cancer with non-cancer cases.

RESULTS

There were 83 patients who underwent a right hemicolectomy during the study period and of these, 65 had an elective procedure. The total cost of a laparoscopic procedure was £3,998.12 compared with £3,427.50 for open surgery (p=0.039). The length of stay was shorter for laparoscopic surgery while the cost of an emergency right hemicolectomy was significantly greater than for elective surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the length of stay for laparoscopic surgery was shorter, this did not translate to a reduction in cost. The cost benefit from a shorter length of stay was offset by a greater cost of consumables. Cost effectiveness analyses should be designed carefully, and they should consider individual operations separately when making healthcare management and funding decisions.

Understanding the Value of Both Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches Compared to the Open Approach in Colorectal Surgery

INTRO

Although the use of laparoscopy has significantly increased in colorectal procedures, robotic surgery may enable additional cases to be performed using a minimally invasive approach. We separately evaluated the value of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures compared to the open approach.

METHODS

Patients undergoing nonemergent colorectal operations from 2010 to 2013 with National Surgical Quality Improvement Project data were identified. Robotic and laparoscopic procedures were separately matched (1:1) to open cases. Outcomes included 30-day composite morbidity, length of stay, operative time, and inpatient costs. Frequently used intraoperative disposable items were categorized, and significant cost contributors were identified by surgical approach. Statistical differences were determined with Chi-square and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

RESULTS

Both laparoscopic (n = 67) and robotic (n = 45) approaches were associated with decreased composite morbidity compared to matched open cases (lap vs. open: 22.4% vs. 49.2%, P < .01; robotic vs. open: 6.7% vs. 33.3%, P < .01). Median length of stay was significantly shorter for both laparoscopic and robotic compared to open surgery (lap vs. open: 5 vs. 7 days, P < .01; robotic vs. open: 5 vs. 7 days, P < .01). Median hospital costs were similar between laparoscopic and open surgery ($13,319 vs. $14,039; P = .80) and robotic and open surgery ($13,778 vs. $13,629; P = .48).

CONCLUSION

These findings illustrate the value for both laparoscopic and robotic approaches to colorectal surgery compared to the open approach in terms of short-term outcomes and inpatient costs. Advanced intraoperative disposable items such as cutting staplers and energy devices are important targets for additional cost containment.

Towards autonomous motion control in minimally invasive robotic surgery

INTRODUCTION

While autonomous surgical robotic systems exist primarily at the research level, recently these systems have made a strong push into clinical settings. The autonomous or semi-autonomous control of surgical robotic platforms may offer significant improvements to a diverse field of surgical procedures, allowing for high precision, intelligent manipulation of these systems and opening the door to advanced minimally invasive surgical procedures not currently possible.

AREAS COVERED

This review highlights those experimental systems currently under development with a focus on in vivo modeling and control strategies designed specifically for the complex and dynamic surgical environment. Expert review: Novel methods for state estimation, system modeling and disturbance rejection, as applied to these devices, continues to improve the performance of these important surgical tools. Procedures such as Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery and Laparo-Endoscopic Single Site surgery, as well as more conventional procedures such as Colonoscopy, serve to benefit tremendously from the development of these automated robotic systems, enabling surgeons to minimize tissue damage and shorten procedure times while avoiding the consequences of laparotomy.

Epidermal Sutureless Closure of the Umbilical Base Following Laparoscopic Colectomy for Colon Cancer

At our institute, a non-suturing method for closure of the umbilical epidermis has been used in laparoscopic colorectal resection to prevent umbilical wound infection. We performed a retrospective evaluation of the incidence of umbilical wound infection using this technique for patients with colorectal cancer. From 2010 to 2014, 178 consecutive patients underwent elective laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer. The umbilical fascia was closed using interrupted multifilament absorbable sutures. The skin surface of the umbilicus was compressed using a cotton ball and sealed by water vapor-permeable film. Three (1.7 %) patients required conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery. The mean surgery time was 174 ± 48 min, intraoperative blood loss was 29 ± 75 mL, and postoperative hospital stay was 10.5 ± 6.7 days. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria, umbilical superficial wound infection occurred in two (1.1 %) patients. The two patients recovered from their wound infections after a few days of drainage, and their hospital discharge was not delayed. Deep umbilical wound infection did not occur in any patient. Our non-suturing closure technique appeared to be effective in preventing wound infection after laparoscopic resection of colon cancer.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery for transverse colon cancer: a retrospective multicenter study

Purpose

The purpose of the present study was to compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for transverse colon cancer.

Patients and methods

We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent surgery for transverse colon cancer at six Hallym University-affiliated hospitals between January 2005 and June 2015. The perioperative outcomes and oncologic outcomes were compared between laparoscopic and open surgery.

Results

Of 226 patients with transverse colon cancer, 103 underwent laparoscopic surgery and 123 underwent open surgery. There were no differences in the patient characteristics between the two groups. Regarding perioperative outcomes, the operation time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (267.3 vs 172.7 minutes, P<0.001), but the time to soft food intake (6.0 vs 6.6 days, P=0.036) and the postoperative hospital stay (13.7 vs 15.7 days, P=0.018) were shorter in the laparoscopic group. The number of harvested lymph nodes was lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (20.3 vs 24.3, P<0.001). The 5-year overall survival (90.8% vs 88.6%, P=0.540) and disease-free survival (86.1% vs 78.9%, P=0.201) rates were similar in both groups.

Conclusion

The present study showed that laparoscopic surgery is associated with several perioperative benefits and similar oncologic outcomes to open surgery for the resection of transverse colon cancer. Therefore, laparoscopic surgery offers a safe alternative to open surgery in patients with transverse colon cancer.

Selection for laparoscopic resection confers a survival benefit in colorectal cancer surgery in England

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery is being increasingly used in colorectal cancer resections. The aim of this national study was to determine whether laparoscopy confers a long-term survival advantage in colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A national administrative data set (Hospital Episode Statistics-HES) encompassing all elective hospital admissions in England between 2001 and 2011 was analysed. All patients that had a colorectal cancer resection (open or laparoscopic) were identified. Cox hazard regression was used to determine differences in overall survival (10 year) between the open and laparoscopy groups.

RESULTS

A total of 141,682 patients underwent elective surgery for colorectal cancer, of which 20.9 % (n = 29,550) had a laparoscopic procedure. The median 5-year survival in the open group was 36.1 months compared with 46.1 months in the laparoscopic group (p = <0.001). Survival analysis demonstrated laparoscopy to be an independent predictor of survival. Patients who underwent laparoscopic resection were 18 % less likely to die than patients who had an open CRC resection (HR 0.82, CI 0.79-0.83, p < 0.001). This survival benefit persisted even when initial post-operative mortality (90 day) was excluded (HR 0.87, CI 0.85-0.90, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis, exploring the effect of CRC laparoscopic surgery on survival in the elderly (>79 years old), demonstrated similar survival benefit amongst patients treated using laparoscopy (HR 0.90, CI 0.86-0.94, p < 0.001). Patients not undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to survive if they underwent laparoscopic resection (HR 0.81, CI 0.78-0.83, p < 0.001). Similarly, patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy demonstrated a survival benefit if a minimal access surgical approach was utilised (HR 0.86, CI 0.81-0.91, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy confers a survival benefit, irrespective of age and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy, beyond the initial post-operative period in patients selected for elective colorectal cancer resection.

SILS sigmoidectomy versus multiport laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis

Background and Objectives:

In this single-institution study, we aimed to compare the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (SILSS) with multiport laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (MLS) for recurrent diverticulitis.

Methods:

Between October 2011 and February 2013, 60 sigmoidectomies were performed by the same surgeon. Forty patients had a MLS and 20 patients had a SILSS. Outcomes were compared.

Results:

Patient characteristics were similar. There was no difference in morbidity, mortality or readmission rates. The mean operative time was longer in the SILSS group (P = .0012). In a larger proportion of patients from the SILSS group, 2 linear staplers were needed for transection at the rectum (P = .006). The total cost of disposable items was higher in the SILSS group (P < .0001). No additional ports were placed in the SILSS group. Return to bowel function or return to oral intake was faster in the SILSS group (P = .0446 and P = .0137, respectively). Maximum pain scores on postoperative days 1 and 2 were significantly less for the SILSS group (P = .0014 and P = .047, respectively). Hospital stay was borderline statistically shorter in the SILSS group (P = .0053). SILSS was also associated with better cosmesis (P < .0011).

Conclusion:

SILSS is feasible and safe and is associated with earlier recovery of bowel function, a significant reduction in postoperative pain, and better cosmesis.