Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resections with respect to 30-day perioperative morbidity

Human Factors Integration in Robotic Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Using the example of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), we explore the methodological and practical challenges of technology integration in surgery, provide examples of evidence-based improvements, and discuss the importance of systems engineering and clinical human factors research and practice.

BACKGROUND

New operating room technologies offer potential benefits for patients and staff, yet also present challenges for physical, procedural, team, and organizational integration. Historically, RAS implementation has focused on establishing the technical skills of the surgeon on the console, and has not systematically addressed the new skills required for other team members, the use of the workspace, or the organizational changes.

RESULTS

Human factors studies of robotic surgery have demonstrated not just the effects of these hidden complexities on people, teams, processes, and proximal outcomes, but also have been able to analyze and explain in detail why they happen and offer methods to address them. We review studies on workload, communication, workflow, workspace, and coordination in robotic surgery, and then discuss the potential for improvement that these studies suggest within the wider healthcare system.

CONCLUSION

There is a growing need to understand and develop approaches to safety and quality improvement through human-systems integration at the frontline of care.Precis: The introduction of robotic surgery has exposed under-acknowledged complexities of introducing complex technology into operating rooms. We explore the methodological and practical challenges, provide examples of evidence-based improvements, and discuss the implications for systems engineering and clinical human factors research and practice.

Trends in the Management of Non-emergent Surgery for Diverticular Disease and the Impact of Practice Parameters

BACKGROUND

Due to the rise in diverticular disease, the ASCRS developed practice parameters to ensure high-quality patient care. Our study aims to evaluate the impact of the 2014 practice parameters on the treatment of non-emergent left-sided diverticular disease.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study using the ACS-National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP). Elective sigmoid resections performed by year were evaluated and compared before and after practice parameters were published.

RESULTS

Overall, 46,950 patients met inclusion criteria. There was a significant decrease in the number of non-emergent operations when evaluating before and after guideline implementation (P < .001). There was a significant decrease in the number of patients younger than 50 years of age operated electively for diverticular disease (25.8% vs. 23.9%, P = .005). Adoption of minimally invasive surgery continued to increase significantly throughout the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication of the 2014 ASCRS practice parameters is associated with a change in management of diverticular disease in the non-emergent setting.

Should we encourage the use of robotic technologies in complicated diverticulitis? Results of systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Complicated diverticulitis is a common abdominal emergency that often requires a surgical intervention. The systematic review and meta-analysis below compare the benefits and harms of robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery in patients with complicated colonic diverticular disease. Methods: The following databases were searched before 1 March 2023: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The internal validity of the selected non-randomized studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. The meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were performed using RevMan 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom) and Copenhagen Trial Unit Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) software (Copenhagen Trial Unit, Center for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark), respectively. Results: We found no relevant randomized controlled trials in the searched databases. Therefore, we analyzed 5 non-randomized studies with satisfactory internal validity and similar designs comprising a total of 442 patients (184 (41.6%) robotic and 258 (58.4%) laparoscopic interventions). The analysis revealed that robotic surgery for complicated diverticulitis (CD) took longer than laparoscopy (MD = 42 min; 95% CI: [-16, 101]). No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups regarding intraoperative blood loss (MD = -9 mL; 95% CI: [-26, 8]) and the rate of conversion to open surgery (2.17% or 4/184 for robotic surgery vs. 6.59% or 17/258 for laparoscopy; RR = 0.63; 95% CI: [0.10, 4.00]). The type of surgery did not affect the length of in-hospital stay (MD = 0.18; 95% CI: [-0.60, 0.97]) or the rate of postoperative complications (14.1% or 26/184 for robotic surgery vs. 19.8% or 51/258 for laparoscopy; RR = 0.81; 95% CI: [0.52, 1.26]). No deaths were reported in either group. Discussion: The meta-analysis suggests that robotic surgery is an appropriate option for managing complicated diverticulitis. It is associated with a trend toward a lower rate of conversion to open surgery and fewer postoperative complications; however, this trend does not reach the level of statistical significance. Since no high quality RCTs were available, this meta-analysis isnot able to provide reliable conclusion, but only a remarkable lack of proper evidence supporting robotic technology. The need for further evidence-based trials is important.

Robotic colorectal surgery in the emergent diverticulitis setting: is it safe? A review of large national database

BACKGROUND

As robotic colorectal surgery continues to advance in conjunction with improved recovery protocols, we began implementing robotic surgery (RS) as an option for emergent diverticulitis surgery. Our hospital system utilizes the Da Vinci Xi system, and staff are required to undergo training, making emergent colorectal surgery a feasible option. However, it is essential to determine the safety with reproducibility of our experiences.

METHODS

A de-identified retrospective review was performed of Intuitive's national database which obtained data from 262 facilities from January 2018 through December 2021. This identified over 22,000 emergent colorectal surgeries. Of those, over 2500 were performed for diverticulitis in which 126 were RS, 446 laparoscopic surgery (LS), and 1952 open surgery (OS). Clinical outcome metrics including conversion rates, anastomotic leaks, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, length of stay, mortality, and readmissions were obtained. The cohort was defined by patients who were seen in the emergency department (ED) with diverticulitis and proceeded to have a sigmoid colectomy within 24 h of ED arrival.

RESULTS

RS was associated with increased operating time (RS 262, LS 207, OS 182 min), but data has shown many benefits of emergent RS compared to OS. We identified significant decreases in ICU admission rates (OS 19.0%, RS 9.5%, p = 0.01) and anastomotic leak rates (OS 4.4%, RS 0.8%, p = 0.04), with borderline improvement in overall length of stay (OS 9.9, RS 8.9 days, p = 0.05). When compared with LS, RS showed many comparable results. However, RS witnessed a statistically significant improvement in anastomotic leak rates (LS 4.5%, RS 0.8%, p = 0.04). Importantly, there was a striking difference in conversion rates to OS. LS converted over 28.7% of cases to OS, whereas RS only converted 7.9%, p = 0.000005.

CONCLUSION

Given these findings, RS is another MIS tool that could be a safe and feasible option for the acute management of emergent diverticulitis.

Combining staged laparoscopic colectomy with robotic completion proctectomy and ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA) in ulcerative colitis for improved clinical and cosmetic outcomes: a single-center feasibility study and technical description

Robotic proctectomy has been shown to lead to better functional outcomes compared to laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer. However, in ulcerative colitis (UC), the potential value of robotic proctectomy has not yet been investigated, and in this indication, the operation needs to be adjusted to the total colectomy typically performed in the preceding 6 months. In this study, we describe the technique and analyze outcomes of a staged laparoscopic and robotic three-stage restorative proctocolectomy and compare the clinical outcome with the classical laparoscopic procedure. Between December 2016 and May 2021, 17 patients underwent robotic completion proctectomy (CP) with ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA) for UC. These patients were compared to 10 patients who underwent laparoscopic CP and IPAA, following laparoscopic total colectomy with end ileostomy 6 months prior by the same surgical team at our tertiary referral center. 27 patients underwent a 3-stage procedure for refractory UC (10 in the lap. group vs. 17 in the robot group). Return to normal bowel function and morbidity were comparable between the two groups. Median length of hospital stay was the same for the robotic proctectomy/IPAA group with 7 days [median; IQR (6–10)], compared to the laparoscopic stage II with 7.5 days [median; IQR (6.25–8)]. Median time to soft diet was 2 days [IQR (1–3)] vs. 3 days in the lap group [IQR 3 (3–4)]. Two patients suffered from a major complication (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3a) in the first 90 postoperative days in the robotic group vs. one in the laparoscopic group. Perception of cosmetic results were favorable with 100% of patients reporting to be highly satisfied or satisfied in the robotic group. This report demonstrates the feasibility of a combined laparoscopic and robotic staged restorative proctocolectomy for UC, when compared with the traditional approach. Robotic pelvic dissection and a revised trocar placement in staged proctocolectomy with synergistic use of both surgical techniques with their individual advantages will likely improve overall long-term functional results, including an improved cosmetic outcome.

Robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures for colorectal cancer

The study aims to investigate perioperative indices and immediate outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgical interventions in colorectal cancer patients. The study included 163 patients [90 (55.2%) females and 73 (44.8%) males, aged 67.46 ± 6.72 years, on average] who had surgery for morphologically checked colorectal cancer. Of those, 101 patients had laparoscopic surgery (Group 1), and 62 patients had robot-assisted surgery (Group 2). The study found that the safety profile of both robot and laparoscopic procedures for colorectal cancer is comparable. The total complication rate in the laparoscopic group was 6.9% (in 7 patients), in the robot-assisted group-11.3% (in 7 patients) (χ² = 0.93, p = 0.34). Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer is a promising direction for improving patients' level and quality of care with this oncological pathology.

Robotic Surgery for Complicated Diverticular Disease

Diverticular disease is common, and increasing in prevalence worldwide. The treatment for acute and chronic diverticular disease has a huge clinical and economic burden. Surgery is standard for complicated diverticulitis, and there are several benefits to using robotic surgery in these cases. Complicated diverticular disease can result in fistula, fibrosis, and deranged anatomy, which present technical challenges to the surgeon. Understanding and anticipating these anatomical challenges is key to successful surgery. While fears of conversion in complicated cases may stop surgeons from using traditional laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery is especially promising for enhancing dexterity, visualization, and facilitating completely minimally invasive surgery in these complicated cases. In this chapter, we review end-to-end technical strategies of robotic colorectal surgery for complicated diverticular disease, including cases with colovesicular, colovaginal, and colocutaneous fistulae.

Open versus laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of diverticular colovesical fistulas: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze the evidence regarding open versus laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of diverticular colovesical fistula (CVF) in terms of perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases for studies comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery for CVF. We pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) using random or fixed effects models.

RESULTS

Five non-randomized studies with 227 patients met the inclusion criteria. All were retrospective studies, published between 2014 and 2020. For laparoscopic surgery, the pooled rate for conversion to laparotomy was 36%. Laparoscopic and open procedures required similar operative time (MD: -11.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -51.41 to 28.16). No difference was found in terms of stoma rates between laparoscopic and open surgery (OR: 1.12; 95% CI 0.44-2.86). Overall, the rate of total postoperative complications was lower in the laparoscopic group (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.30-0.99). The pooled analysis showed equivalent rates of anastomotic leaks (OR: 0.61; 95% CI 0.15-2.45), surgical site infections (OR: 0.44; 95% CI 0.19-1.01), and mortality (OR: 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.15). The length of stay was significantly reduced with laparoscopic surgery (MD: -2.89; 95% CI -4.20 to -1.58).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with CVF, the laparoscopic approach appears to have shorter hospital length of stay, with no differences in anastomotic leaks, surgical site infections, stoma rates, and mortality, when compared with open surgery.

Do specific operative approaches and insurance status impact timely access to colorectal cancer care?

INTRODUCTION

The increased use of minimally invasive surgery in the management of colorectal cancer has led to a renewed focus on how certain factors, such as insurance status, impact the equitable distribution of both laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Our goal was to analyze surgical wait times between robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches, and to determine whether insurance status impacts timely access to treatment.

METHODS

After IRB approval, adult patients from the National Cancer Database with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer were identified (2010-2016). Patients who underwent radiation therapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, had wait times of 0 days from diagnosis to surgery, or had metastatic disease were excluded. Primary outcomes were days from cancer diagnosis to surgery and days from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable Poisson regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Among 324,784 patients, 5.9% underwent robotic, 47.5% laparoscopic, and 46.7% open surgery. Patients undergoing robotic surgery incurred the longest wait times from diagnosis to surgery (29.5 days [robotic] vs. 21.7 [laparoscopic] vs. 17.2 [open], p < 0.001), but the shortest wait times from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy (48.9 days [robotic] vs. 49.9 [laparoscopic] vs. 54.8 [open], p < 0.001). On adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was associated with a 1.46 × longer wait time to surgery (IRR 1.462, 95% CI 1.458-1.467, p < 0.001), but decreased wait time to adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.909, 95% CI 0.905-0.913, p < 0.001) compared to an open approach. Private insurance was associated with decreased wait times to surgery (IRR 0.966, 95% CI 0.962-0.969, p < 0.001) and adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.862, 95% CI 0.858-0.865, p < 0.001) compared to Medicaid.

CONCLUSION

Though patients undergoing robotic surgery experienced delays from diagnosis to surgery, they tended to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy sooner compared to those undergoing open or laparoscopic approaches. Private insurance was independently associated not only with access to robotic surgery, but also shorter wait times during all stages of treatment.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Emergent Sigmoid Resection for Perforated Diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

Potential advantages of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis are still under consideration. This study is designed to determine if emergent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis is associated with outcomes comparable to the traditional open approach.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons-National-Surgical-Quality-Improvement-Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried for laparoscopic and open emergent sigmoidectomy cases for perforated diverticulitis from 2012 through 2017. Using propensity score weights, 30-day outcomes between laparoscopic and open approaches were compared in two ways: one with converted cases as a separate group and another with converted cases combined with the laparoscopic-completed group (intention-to-treat).

RESULTS

A total of 3756 cases met inclusion criteria-282 laparoscopic-completed, 175 laparoscopic-converted-to-open, and 3299 open. The laparoscopic-completed approach had significantly better outcomes than open and laparoscopic-converted cases. When combining laparoscopic-completed and laparoscopic-converted cases (intention-to-treat), the laparoscopic approach still had significantly fewer complications per patient, less unplanned intubation (p = 0.01), and acute renal failure (p = 0.005) than the open group. Laparoscopic groups had longer operating times and shorter hospital length of stay than the open group. Subgroup analysis comparing laparoscopic and open Hartmann's procedure and primary anastomosis with and without diverting stoma also showed favorable outcomes for the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic emergent sigmoid resection for perforated diverticulitis is associated with favorable outcomes compared to the open approach. Hartmann's procedure is still common and conversion rate is high. Training efforts that increase adoption of minimally invasive surgery and decrease conversion rates are justified. Randomized trials comparing laparoscopic and open approaches may allow further critical assessment of these findings.

The impact of surgical modality on self-reported body image, quality of life and survivorship after anterior resection for colorectal cancer – a mixed methods study

Background

There is growing enthusiasm for robotic and transanal surgery as an alternative to open or laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC). We examined the impact of surgical modality on body image and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving anterior resection for CRC.

Methods

We used a mixed-methods approach, consisting of a chart review and semistructured interviews with CRC patients, at least 8 months after surgery. We assessed cosmetic outcomes and QOL using validated questionnaires.

Results

Thirty patients were stratified into open (n = 8), laparoscopic (n = 12) and robotic (n = 10) groups. Mean body image scores were significantly higher (i.e., poorer body image) in patients receiving open surgery (mean difference [MD] +5.7 with laparoscopy, p < 0.001). Open surgery was more detrimental to physical function, including strenuous activities, prolonged ambulation and self-care (MD –11.6 with laparoscopy, p = 0.039). Patients receiving laparoscopic surgery reported superior role (MD +27.6 with open surgery, p = 0.002) and social function (MD +13.7 with open surgery, p = 0.042), including the ability to enjoy hobbies, family life and social activities. Surgical modality did not impact emotional and cognitive function or symptoms including genitourinary function, pain and defecation.

Conclusion

The negative impact of open surgery on body image and physical function warrants further educational interventions for patients. The protective effect of laparoscopy on role and function may be associated with “tumour factors” that are unaccounted for in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaires. Open surgery is detrimental to body image and physical function in patients receiving anterior resection for CRC. Prospective randomized studies are required to validate these findings.

Minimally Invasive Surgery in Complex Crohn's Disease

Minimally invasive approaches are safe, feasible, and often recommended as the initial choice in the surgical management of Crohn's disease. However, a consensus has not been reached as the ideal approach in the surgical treatment of complex and recurrent Crohn's disease. Laparoscopy may provide advantages such as shorter length of stay and decreased postoperative pain and result in less adhesion formation in patients with complex disease. Robotic techniques may be beneficial in selected patients for completion proctectomy, providing better visualization in the narrow pelvis and increased dexterity. Decision of surgical technique should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Propensity-Matched Analysis of Sigmoidectomies for Diverticular Disease

Background and Objectives:

The role for the robotic-assisted approach as a minimally invasive alternative to open colorectal surgery is in the evaluation phase. While the benefits of minimally invasive colorectal surgery when compared to the open approach have been clearly demonstrated, the adoption of laparoscopy has been limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes, hospital and payer characteristics of patients undergoing robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease in the United States.

Methods:

This is a retrospective propensity score–matched analysis. The Premier Healthcare Database was queried for patients with diverticular disease. Patients with diverticular disease who underwent robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease from January 2013 through September 2015 were included. Propensity-score matching (1:1) facilitated comparison of robotic-assisted versus open approach and robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic approach. Peri-operative outcomes were assessed for both comparisons.

Results:

There were several outcomes advantages for the robotic-assisted approach when compared to laparoscopic and open sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease that included significantly fewer conversions to open (P = .0002), shorter hospital length of stay, fewer postoperative complications—ileus, wound complications, and acute renal failure—and more patients discharged directly to home.

Conclusions:

The robotic-assisted minimally invasive approach to elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease results in favorable intra-operative and postoperative outcomes when compared to laparoscopic and open approaches.

Oncological Outcomes After Robotic Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: Analysis of a Prospective Database

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the oncological outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) at an NCI designated cancer center.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The effectiveness of laparoscopic TME could not be established, but the robotic-assisted approach may hold some promise, with improved visualization and ergonomics for pelvic dissection. Oncological outcome data is presently lacking.

METHODS

Patients who underwent total mesorectal excision or tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between April 2009 and April 2016 via a robotic approach were identified from a prospective single-institution database. The circumferential resection margin (CRM), distal resection margin, and TME completeness rates were determined. Kaplan-Meier analysis of disease-free survival and overall survival was performed for all patients treated with curative intent.

RESULTS

A total of 276 patients underwent robotic proctectomy during the study period. Robotic surgery was performed initially by 1 surgeon with 3 additional surgeons progressively transitioning from open to robotic during the study period with annual increase in the total number of cases performed robotically. Seven patients had involved circumferential resection margins (2.5%), and there were no positive distal or proximal resection margins. One hundred eighty-six patients had TME quality assessed, and only 1 patient (0.5%) had an incomplete TME. Eighty-three patients were followed up for a minimum of 3 years, with a local recurrence rate of 2.4%, and a distant recurrence rate of 16.9%. Five-year disease-free survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis was 82%, and 5-year overall survival was 87%.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer can be performed with good short and medium term oncological outcomes in selected patients.

A Regional and National Database Comparison of Colorectal Outcomes

Background and Objectives:

The traditional open approach is still a common option for colectomy and the most common option chosen for rectal resections for cancer. Randomized trials and large database studies have reported the merits of the minimally invasive approach, while studies comparing laparoscopic and robotic options have reported inconsistent results.

Methods:

This study was designed to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes in protocol-driven regional and national databases. Logistic and multiple linear regression analyses were used to compare standard 30-day colorectal outcomes in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) databases. The primary outcome was overall complications.

Results:

A total of 10,054 MSQC patients (open 37.5%, laparoscopic 48.8%, and robotic 13.6%) and 80,535 ACS-NSQIP patients (open 25.0%, laparoscopic 67.1%, and robotic 7.9%) met inclusion criteria. Overall complications and surgical site infections were significantly favorable for the laparoscopic and robotic approaches compared with the open approach. Anastomotic leaks were significantly fewer for the laparoscopic and robotic approaches compared with the open approach in ACS-NSQIP, while there was no significant difference between robotic and open approaches in MSQC. Laparoscopic complications were significantly less than robotic complications in MSQC but significantly more in ACS-NSQIP. Laparoscopic 30-day mortality was significantly less than for the robotic approach in MSQC, but there was no difference in ACS-NSQIP.

Conclusion:

Minimally invasive colorectal surgery is associated with fewer complications and has several other outcomes advantages compared with the traditional open approach. Individual complication comparisons vary between databases, and caution should be exercised when interpreting results in context.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Health Information Technology Continues to Show Positive Effect on Medical Outcomes: Systematic Review

Background

Health information technology (HIT) has been introduced into the health care industry since the 1960s when mainframes assisted with financial transactions, but questions remained about HIT’s contribution to medical outcomes. Several systematic reviews since the 1990s have focused on this relationship. This review updates the literature.

Objective

The purpose of this review was to analyze the current literature for the impact of HIT on medical outcomes. We hypothesized that there is a positive association between the adoption of HIT and medical outcomes.

Methods

We queried the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) by PubMed databases for peer-reviewed publications in the last 5 years that defined an HIT intervention and an effect on medical outcomes in terms of efficiency or effectiveness. We structured the review from the Primary Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), and we conducted the review in accordance with the Assessment for Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR).

Results

We narrowed our search from 3636 papers to 37 for final analysis. At least one improved medical outcome as a result of HIT adoption was identified in 81% (25/37) of research studies that met inclusion criteria, thus strongly supporting our hypothesis. No statistical difference in outcomes was identified as a result of HIT in 19% of included studies. Twelve categories of HIT and three categories of outcomes occurred 38 and 65 times, respectively.

Conclusions

A strong majority of the literature shows positive effects of HIT on the effectiveness of medical outcomes, which positively supports efforts that prepare for stage 3 of meaningful use. This aligns with previous reviews in other time frames.

The cost of conversion in robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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