Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection

Background

During the past 20 years, laparoscopy has revolutionized colorectal surgery. With proven benefits in patient outcomes and healthcare utilization, laparoscopic colorectal surgery has steadily increased in use. Robotic surgery, a new addition to colorectal surgery, has been suggested to facilitate and overcome limitations of laparoscopic surgery. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic resection (RALR) to laparoscopic resections (LAP) in colorectal surgery.

Methods

A national inpatient database was evaluated for colorectal resections performed over a 30-month period. Cases were divided into traditional LAP and RALR resection groups. Cost of robot acquisition and servicing were not measured. Main outcome measures were hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, complications, and costs between groups.

Results

A total of 17,265 LAP and 744 RARL procedures were identified. The RALR cases had significantly higher total cost ($5,272 increase, p < 0.001) and direct cost ($4,432 increase, p < 0.001), significantly longer operating time (39 min, p < 0.001), and were more likely to develop postoperative bleeding (odds ratio 1.6; p = 0.014) than traditional laparoscopic patients. LOS, complications, and discharge disposition were comparable. Similar findings were noted for both laparoscopic colonic and rectal surgery.

Conclusions

RALR had significantly higher costs and operative time than traditional LAP without a measurable benefit.     

Correlation of the gastroesophageal flap valve grade with the surgery rate in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease

Background

The importance of endoscopic evaluation and grading of the gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV) in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was previously demonstrated with increased acid exposure and high grades of esophagitis in those with high-grade valves. On the other hand, no data exist on the relationship between GEFV appearance and surgical rate.

Methods

For 453 patients with symptoms suggestive of GERD, GEFV grading and 24-h ambulatory pH monitoring were performed. Surgery was performed for 82 of these patients who failed medical management or had disease complications.

Results

The GEFV grade 4 patients were younger than the patients with normal GEFV (grades 1 [p = 0.017] and 2 [p < 0.001]) and showed significant male predominance. The prevalence of hiatal hernia, the degree of esophageal acid exposure, and the prevalence and degree of erosive esophagitis significantly increased with GEFV grade (p < 0.001 for all). No GEFV grade 1 patients underwent surgery compared with 4.9 % of the grade 2 patients, 20.5 % of the grade 3 patients, and 63.6 % of the grade 4 patients who had surgery for various indications (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Esophagogastric opening estimated by endoscopic grading of the GEFV was strongly correlated with surgery rate in GERD patients. In particular, patients with grade 4 valves showed the highest rates of erosive esophagitis and axial hiatal hernia and frequently underwent surgery for either failed medical management or disease complications.     

Impact of an enhanced recovery program on short-term outcomes after scheduled laparoscopic colon resection

Introduction

Both enhanced recovery programs (ERP) and laparoscopy can reduce complications and length of stay (LOS) in colon surgery. We investigated whether ERP further improved the short-term outcomes of scheduled laparoscopic colectomies.

Methods

We performed an audit of all patients undergoing scheduled laparoscopic colon resection between January 2003 and August 2010 in our institution. An ERP including accelerated introduction of oral nutrition, mobilization, pain control, and catheter management was introduced in 2005. Demographic data, intra and postoperative details and 30-day ER visit and readmission rate were collected. We compared LOS and short-term outcomes for patients on the program with those receiving traditional postoperative care using Chi-square and regression models. Data are presented as median [25th, 75th percentile]. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

Results

136 (46 %) of 297 eligible patients were enrolled in the ERP. At baseline, the two groups had similar demographic characteristics, but patients in the ERP were more likely to have their operation by a colorectal surgeon (p = 0.01). Patients in the ERP ate solids earlier (p < 0.001) and had earlier removal of their urinary catheter (p < 0.001). LOS was 4 [3, 6] days for both groups (p < 0.01), with more patients in the ERP discharged by POD 3 (p < 0.001). After adjusting for other variables, ERP enrolment remained an independent predictor of LOS (p < 0.01), along with age (p < 0.01) and in-hospital complications (p < 0.001). Complication rates were similar between the two groups. Patients in the ERP had significantly fewer ER visits (p = 0.02), but there were no differences in readmission rates.

Conclusion

In patients undergoing scheduled laparoscopic colectomy in a university-based clinical teaching unit, ERP can further reduce length of stay and postoperative ER visits without increasing readmission rates.     

The minimally invasive approach is associated with reduced perioperative thromboembolic and bleeding complications for patients receiving preoperative chronic oral anticoagulant therapy who undergo colorectal surgery

Background

The data on the perioperative risk of both thromboembolism and hemorrhage for patients receiving chronic oral anticoagulation who undergo colorectal surgery are sparse. In addition, it is uncertain whether the use of the laparoscopic instead of open technique entails additional risk for these patients. This study aimed to evaluate surgical outcomes, with a particular focus on perioperative thromboembolic and bleeding complications for patients receiving chronic oral anticoagulation therapy who undergo open or laparoscopic colorectal resection.

Methods

Patients undergoing colorectal resection between 1994 and 2011 on preoperative chronic oral anticoagulant therapy were included in the study. Patient demographics, characteristics, and perioperative outcomes, with particular emphasis on thromboembolism and bleeding risks, were evaluated comparing laparoscopic and open colectomy.

Results

The study enrolled 261 patients receiving chronic anticoagulation therapy (102 laparoscopic colectomy vs 159 open colectomy patients). The patients had a mean age of 57.9 years and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 29.3 kg/m². The conversion rate was 8.8 % (n = 9) for laparoscopic operations. Laparoscopic and open cases had comparable BMIs and levels of preoperative hemoglobin. Anastomotic leak, postoperative hospital stay, and surgical-site infection rates were similar for the two groups. Although the laparoscopic group had a significantly greater mean age (p < 0.001) and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score (p = 0.005), the rates for postoperative venous thromboembolism (24.5 vs 2.9 %; p < 0.001), urinary complications (6.9 vs 0 %; p = 0.008), and overall morbidity (44.7 vs 17.7 %; p < 0.001) were lower after laparoscopic surgery. Although the rates for intra- and postoperative blood transfusion were similar, the postoperative hemoglobin levels were significantly higher after laparoscopic surgery. One patient in the laparoscopic group died of sepsis on postoperative day 3.

Conclusion

For the patients receiving preoperative chronic anticoagulant therapy who underwent colorectal resection, the laparoscopic approach was associated with lower thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications than open surgery.     

The prevalence of laparoscopy and patient safety outcomes: an analysis of colorectal resections

Background

Although laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with faster postoperative recovery and shorter hospital stays than open surgery, perioperative patient safety analyses using process-focused, validated measures have yet to be performed.

Methods

This study analyzed the U.S. Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a 20 % weighted sample of inpatient hospital discharges, from 1998 to 2009. The study included patients who underwent open or laparoscopic colorectal resections and excluded those younger than 18 years and those who underwent emergent or multiple colorectal operations. The primary outcome measure was surgery-specific patient safety indicators (PSIs). Uni- and multivariate regression methods were used to estimate associations of surgery type with PSIs.

Results

A total of 2,936,641 patients were identified, and 177,547 (6 %) of these patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal resections. The laparoscopic patients were younger (p < 0.001) and more likely to be Caucasian (p = 0.005) and male (p < 0.001), to have lower Charlson scores (p < 0.001), and to undergo surgery in teaching hospitals (p < 0.001) located in urban areas (p < 0.001). The prevalence of laparoscopic surgery has increased rapidly in recent years, from 5 to 29 % of all colorectal procedures performed in 2007 and 2009, respectively. The prevalence of any PSI was lower in the laparoscopic group (4.2 vs. 8.3 %; p < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that the likelihood of any PSI for laparoscopic colorectal resection was 57 % lower than for open resections (odds ratio, 0.43; 95 % confidence interval, 0.40–0.46; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery was associated with a lower risk of adverse patient safety events, a difference that became more pronounced as the prevalence of laparoscopy increased. Future studies should focus on factors that promote the safe adoption of innovative surgical techniques and optimize surgical outcomes.     

Colorectal Surgery After Kidney Transplantation: Characteristics of Early vs. Late Posttransplant Interventions

Background

The majority of colorectal complications after kidney transplantation reportedly occur <1 year of transplant. We aimed to identify differences in complications in the early and late posttransplant period.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed kidney transplant recipients undergoing colorectal resection from 1 June 2000 to 1 June 2012 at a single institution, comparing patients by posttransplant year (<1 vs. >1 year). Measured outcomes included major complications, postoperative length of stay, perioperative mortality, reoperations, and readmissions.

Results

We identified 45 patients aged 31–77 (median 55). Gastrointestinal malignancy (31 %), diverticular disease (24 %), and ischemic colitis (16 %) were the most common indications for surgery. The early group (n?=?9) had more cases of ischemic colitis (44 vs. 6 %, p?=?0.01), emergent operations (100 vs. 33 %, p?=?0.0003), blood transfusion (78 vs. 31 %, p?=?0.02), longer length of stay (23.2?±?12 vs. 11.7?±?10 days, p?=?0.02), and higher mortality rate (33 vs. 6 %, p?=?0.05 compared to the late group (n?=?36)). There were no significant differences in major complications, reoperations, or readmissions.

Conclusions

Kidney transplant recipients undergoing colorectal resection <1 year of transplant have a higher incidence of emergency surgery and ischemic colitis compared with those with >1 year posttransplant. Despite these findings, patients with grafts <1 year had a similar postoperative complication rate to patients with grafts >1 year.     

Survival following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery

Background

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is known to provide increased benefits to patients during the postoperative recovery period. Initial scepticism over the oncological adequacy of resection has been dismissed by a number of major randomized trials. Emerging evidence indicates that laparoscopic surgery may provide a potential survival benefit in colorectal cancer.

Methods

Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or open resection for colorectal cancer between October 2003 and December 2010 were analyzed. Data were collated and a database compiled. Survival analysis was calculated by using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

A total of 665 resections were performed with 457 laparoscopically and 208 open. The median length of stay was 4 days following laparoscopic resection and 7 days following open (p < 0.0005). There was no significant difference between the two groups apart from gender (p = 0.03), ASA (p = 0.03), and the number of patients with extranodal metastatic disease (p = 0.01). The 5-year overall survival (OS) in the completed laparoscopic group was 75.8 versus 72.5 % in the open group (p = 0.12). The 5-year OS in patients who were converted was 52 %. The 5-year OS for nonmetastatic disease in the completed laparoscopic group was significantly greater at 79.4 versus 74 % in the open group (p = 0.03). There was no difference between the groups in OS for rectal cancer (p = 0.66), but there was an OS advantage for laparoscopically resected colon cancer (p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic resection for nonmetastatic colon cancer may provide an overall survival advantage.     

Comparison of Peristomal Adhesion Formation Between Laparoscopic and Open Low Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer

Background

Postoperative adhesions appear to be less common following laparoscopic surgery than after conventional open surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of laparoscopic and conventional open rectal surgery on peristomal adhesion formation.

Methods

We enrolled 97 subjects who were participants in a trial comparing open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. These patients had undergone rectal cancer surgery with ileostomy formation. Peristomal adhesions were assessed during ileostomy takedown using an adhesion grading system: (1) no adhesions or fine, filmy adhesions separable by blunt dissection; (2) dense adhesions, separable by sharp dissection; (3) very dense adhesions, resulting in enterotomy and/or requiring extension of the abdominal wall incision.

Results

A total of 57 patients underwent laparoscopic resection (group A) and 40 underwent open resection (group B). Operating time for ileostomy dissection was shorter in group A than in group B (14.6 vs. 19.8 min, respectively; p = 0.047). Dense adhesions (grades 2 and 3) were more common in group B (22/40, 55 %) than in group A (12/57, 21 %; p < 0.001). In particular, grade 3 adhesions were present only in group B (6/40).

Conclusions

The present findings suggest that laparoscopic rectal surgery results in less peristomal adhesion formation than does conventional open surgery.     

The safety of a “fast-track” program after laparoscopic colorectal surgery is comparable in older patients as in younger patients

Introduction

Fast-track protocols, introduced in the late 1990s, have been applied in several surgical fields, particularly for colorectal surgery. However, currently many surgical patients are elderly, and discussion about the application of such programs for elderly patients is lacking. The present study was designed to assess the safety of application of a fast-track program after laparoscopic colorectal surgery in elderly patients.

Methods

From August 2009 to January 2011, we prospectively collected data from patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery with a perioperative fast-track program. The data of patients older and younger than 70 years were compared.

Results

Of a total of 337 patients, the group of patients older than 70 years (OG) totaled 87 (25.8 %) and the younger group (YG) totaled 250 (74.2 %). Ten patients (11.5 %) were excluded in the OG and 24 (9.6 %) in the YG. There were no differences in gender, history of previous surgeries, body mass index, type of operation, operative time, or blood loss between groups. Age (74.8 vs. 56.7 years, p < 0.001), presence of comorbidities (70.1 vs. 44.7 %, p < 0.001), and ASA score (I:II:III, 33.8:57.1:9.1 vs. 60.6:33.2:6.2 %, p < 0.001) were significantly different between the two groups. Postoperative course did not show differences, including return of flatus, stool passage, advancement of diet, removal of urinary catheter, length of usage of IV antibiotics, complications, and length of postoperative stay. Emergency department visits or readmission within a month after discharge were more frequent in the OG (11.7 %) than the YG (4 %; p = 0.013).

Conclusions

Fast-track after laparoscopic colorectal surgery can be safely applied in carefully selected elderly patients older than age 70 years. Physicians should keep in mind complications that may present after discharge and should actively educate patients about them.     

Oxidative stress markers in laparoscopic versus open colectomy for cancer: a double-blind randomized study

Background

Colorectal cancer as well as colorectal surgery is associated with increased oxidative stress through different mechanisms. In this study the levels of different oxidative stress markers were comparatively assessed in patients who underwent laparoscopic or conventional resection for colorectal cancer.

Methods

Sixty patients with colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic (LS) or open surgery (OS). Lipid, protein, RNA, and nitrogen damage was investigated by measuring serum 8-isoprostanes (8-epiPGF_2α), protein carbonyls (PC), 8-hydroxyguanosine (8-OHG), and 3-nitrotyrosine (3-NT), respectively. The primary end point of the study was to analyze and compare serum levels of the oxidative stress markers between the groups.

Results

Postoperative serum levels of 8-epiPGF_2α, 3-NT, and 8-OHG were significantly lower in the LS group at 24 h after surgery (p < 0.05). At 6 h postoperatively, the levels of 8-epiPGF_2α and 3-NT were significantly lower in the LS group (p < 0.05). No difference in the levels of PC was found between the two groups at any time point. In the OS group, postoperative levels of 8-epiPGF_2α were significantly lower than the preoperative values (p < 0.01). In the LS group, the postoperative values of 8-epiPGF_2α, 3-NT, and 8-OHG were significantly lower than the preoperative values (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with lower oxidative stress compared to open surgery. 8-epiPGF_2α was the most suitable marker for readily defining the oxidative status in patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer.     

Outcome of laparoscopic colectomy for cancer in elderly patients

Background

Resection for colon cancer in the elderly is a major undertaking. However, data on the outcome and survival of elderly patients who underwent laparoscopic resection for colon cancer are limited. This study of patients older than 75 years compared outcome and survival between those who underwent laparoscopic resection and those who had open resection for colorectal cancer.

Methods

From 2000 to 2009, 434 patients ages 75 years and older who underwent elective resection for colon cancer were included in the study. Patients who had rectal cancer or had undergone emergency operations were excluded. Preoperative diagnosis was determined by colonoscopy, and computed tomography scan was performed for preoperative staging. Data on the patients’ demographics, operative details, pathology results, postoperative results, and survival were collected prospectively. The patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery were compared with those who had open surgery.

Results

The study included 434 patients (210 men) with a median age of 80 years (range 75–95 years). Of these 434 patients, 189 underwent laparoscopic resection. Nine patients (4.8 %) required conversion to open operation. The patients did not differ in terms of age, gender, incidence of medical comorbidities, or stage of disease. The median operating time was longer in the laparoscopic group, but the blood loss was significantly less. Laparoscopic resection was associated with a lower mortality rate and a shorter hospital stay (p < 0.05). The open resection group had significantly more cardiac complications (p < 0.05). The overall 5-year survival rates were similar between the patients who had laparoscopic resections and those who had open surgery.

Conclusions

For patients older than 75 years, laparoscopic resection of colon is associated with less intraoperative blood loss, a shorter hospital stay, fewer cardiac complication, and a lower mortality rate than open resection. Therefore, the authors recommend laparoscopic resection of colon cancer as the treatment of choice for elderly patients.     

Laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative outcomes in high-risk patients with colorectal cancer

Background

Patients with significant comorbidities often are denied laparoscopic colorectal resections, because they are thought to be too “high-risk.” This study was designed to examine the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic colorectal resections in high-risk colorectal cancer patients and to compare them with a similar cohort of patients undergoing open resections in the same time period.

Methods

This was a single-center, prospective, cohort study conducted at a high-volume, nonuniversity, tertiary care hospital. From a database of 616 patients submitted to elective colorectal surgery for cancer within a fast-track protocol (January 2005 to November 2011), 188 patients who met at least one minor (age >80 years and body mass index (BMI) >30 m/kg²) and one major (cardiac, pulmonary, renal or liver disease, diabetes mellitus) criterion were classified as high-risk. Differences in baseline characteristics, intraoperative outcomes, and short-term (30-day) postoperative outcomes, as well as the pathology findings and the readmission and reoperation rates, were compared between the open and laparoscopic cohorts in both high- and low-risk groups and between high- and low-risk groups.

Results

During the study period, 68 high-risk patients underwent laparoscopic resections and 120 had open surgeries. A shorter length of postoperative stay (6 vs. 9 days, p < 0.0001) and fewer postoperative nonsurgical complications (4 % vs. 19 %, p = 0.003) were observed among the laparoscopic group. Postoperative major (p = 0.774) and minor complications (p = 0.3) and reoperations (p = 0.196) were similar between the two groups, and a significantly lower rate of mortality (1.5 vs. 7.5 %, p = 0.038) was observed in the laparoscopic group than in the open group.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic colorectal resection can be safely performed on “high-risk” surgical patients with better results than a similar group of high-risk patients undergoing open colon resections.     

Incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Is there any factor associated?

Background

Laparoscopic approach is related to, among others, educing abdominal wall complications such as incisional hernia (IH). However, there are scarce data concerning laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS). The aim of this study was to evaluate related factors and incidence of IH following this approach.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent colorectal surgery with laparoscopic approach in a single center was performed. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months, and also converted to open surgery were included. Uni- and multi-variate analyses were performed using the following variables: age; gender; type of surgery (left, right, total, or segmental colectomy); comorbidities [diabetes and chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD)]; previous surgery; colorectal disease (benign and malignant); operative time; surgical site infection (SSI); and body mass index (BMI). Midline incisions (right colectomy) and off-midline incisions (left colectomies and rectal resections) were also compared.

Results

During a period of 12 years, 1051 laparoscopic colorectal surgeries were performed. The incidence of IH was 6 % (n = 63). Univariate analysis showed that BMI > 30 kg/m² [p < 0.01, OR: 2.3 (1.3–4.7)], SSI [p < 0.01, OR: 6.5 (3.4–12.5)], operative time >180 min [p < 0.01, OR: 2.1 (1.2–3.6)] and conversion to open surgery (p = 0.01, OR: 2.4 [1.1–5.0]) were related to incisional hernias. BMI and SSI have a statistically significant relation with the incidence of IH in multivariate analysis (p < 0.01). No statistical difference between right and left colectomy was observed (6.6 vs. 6.4 %, respectively).

Conclusion

The incidence of IH after LCRS seems to be acceptable. BMI over 30 kg/m² and SSI are strongly associated to this complication.     

Clinical significance of medial approach for suprapancreatic lymph node dissection during laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery

Objective

Suprapancreatic lymph node dissection is critical for gastric cancer surgery. Beginning in 2010, a medial approach was adopted for suprapancreatic lymph node dissection during laparoscopic gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer in our institution. The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes of the medial approach and conventional approach in laparoscopic gastric surgery.

Methods

Between January 2007 and December 2012, a total of 100 patients with clinical T1 or T2 tumors underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy involving suprapancreatic lymph node dissection by the medial approach (n = 44) and conventional approach (n = 56) with curative intent. The comparison was based on clinicopathological characteristics and surgical outcome.

Results

The laparoscopic procedure was not converted to laparotomy in any patient. The patients’ demographics and tumor characteristics did not show any statistically significant difference, except for tumor location. In the conventional approach group, the tumors were at a higher position (p = 0.037) and more frequently received Roux-en-Y reconstruction (p < 0.001). Intracorporeal anastomosis was significantly more common in the medial approach group (p < 0.001). Compared with the conventional approach, the medial approach was associated with significantly less operative blood loss (p < 0.001), more retrieved suprapancreatic lymph nodes (p = 0.019), and a shorter hospital stay (p = 0.018). The rates of complications were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion

This study suggests that the medial approach to suprapancreatic lymph node dissection seems to be convenient and useful in laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery.     

Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery for Obese Patients: Decreased Conversions with the Hand-Assisted Technique

Background

Laparoscopic surgery benefits obese patients but technical difficulties associated with suboptimal exposure and access in these subjects may prompt conversion to open surgery. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) confers advantages over standard laparoscopy (LAP) by facilitating tactile feedback, assisted dissection, and retraction. These benefits could be particularly valuable in obese patients, allowing completion of difficult laparoscopic procedures in this subgroup. Our aim was to compare intra-operative and post-operative outcomes of HALS and LAP approaches in obese patients undergoing colorectal resection at our institution.

Methods

A retrospective study of a prospectively maintained laparoscopic colorectal surgery database was performed. HALS and LAP cases performed in obese patients (body mass index (BMI)?>30) were identified and compared for the following outcomes: operative time, intra-operative complications, rate of conversion to open, blood loss, length of stay, post-operative morbidity, and mortality. Outcomes for the converted patients were included on an intention-to-treat basis for all primary analyses. A secondary analysis of nonconverted and converted cases was also performed.

Results

Over a 5-year period, 496 obese patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection; 86 HALS and 410 LAP cases. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, BMI, and indications for surgery. Conversion to open surgery was less often necessary in HALS compared to LAP cases (3.5 % vs. 12.7 %, p?=?0.014). The LAP group had a significantly smaller incision length for specimen extraction (HALS (7.0?±?1.3 cm) vs. LAP (5.7?±?2.1 cm), p?<?0.001). Length of stay, operative time, morbidity, and mortality rates were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion

In obese patients who require colectomy, the HALS approach increases the likelihood of a successful minimally invasive operation. At the cost of a clinically negligible increase in incision length, HALS may save a high-risk group conversion to formal laparotomy and the adverse outcomes related to this.     

Laparoscopic versus open hernia repair: outcomes and sociodemographic utilization results from the nationwide inpatient sample

Introduction

The differences and advantages of laparoscopic (LVHR) and open ventral hernia repair (OVHR) have been debated since laparoscopic hernia repair was first described. The purpose of this study is to compare LVHR and OVHR with mesh in the United States using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS).

Methods

The NIS, a representative sample of approximately 20 % of all inpatient encounters in the United States, was queried for all ventral hernia repairs with graft or prosthesis in 2009 using ICD-9-CM codes. The patients were stratified into LVHR and OVHR groups. Sociodemographic data, comorbidities, complications, and outcomes were compared between groups.

Results

A total of 18,223 cases were documented in the NIS sample after inclusion and exclusion criteria were met. LVHR was performed in 27.6 % of cases. There were no statistically significant differences in gender or mean income by zip code of residence. Mean age (58.8 years in open group vs. 58.1 years, p = 0.014) and mean Charlson score (0.97 vs. 0.77, p < 0.0001) differed significantly between groups. OVHR more often was associated with emergent admissions (21.7 vs. 15.2 %, p < 0.0001). There were significant differences comparing outcomes between groups: complication rate (OVHR: 8.24 vs. LVHR: 3.97 %, p < 0.0001), average length of stay (5.2 vs. 3.5 days, p < 0.0001), total charge ($45,708 vs. $35,947, p < 0.0001), frequency of routine discharge (80.8 vs. 91.1 %, p < 0.0001), and mortality rate (0.88 vs. 0.36 %, p = 0.0002). After controlling for confounding variables with multivariate regression, all outcomes remained significant between groups.

Conclusions

Patients who have undergone LVHR with mesh had fewer complications, shorter length of stay, lower hospital charges, more frequent routine discharge, and decreased mortality compared with those who received open repair. Patient comorbidities, selection bias, and emergency operations may limit the number of patients who receive laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Regionalization studies may better illuminate the low rates of laparoscopic surgery.     

Is preoperative period associated with severity and unexpected death of injured patients needing emergency trauma surgery?

Purpose

Early operative control of hemorrhage is the key to saving the lives of severe trauma patients. We investigated whether emergency room (ER) stay time [time from the ER to the operating room (OR)] is associated with trauma severity and unexpected trauma death [Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) method-based probability of survival (Ps) ≥0.5 but died] of injured patients needing emergency trauma surgery.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of all trauma patients requiring emergency surgery and all patients with pelvic fractures requiring transcatheter arterial embolization at our hospital from January 2002 to December 2012. We analyzed the relationships among injury severity on ER admission [Injury Severity Score (ISS); Revised Trauma Score (RTS); Ps; Shock Index (SI); American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS)]; mortality rate; unexpected trauma death rate; and ER stay time.

Results

ER stay times were significantly shorter for patients with life-threatening conditions [RTS <6.0 (p < 0.01), Ps <0.5 (p < 0.001), SI ≥1.0 (p < 0.01), and ASA-PS ≥4E (p < 0.001)]. In particular, ER stay time was inversely related to injury severity up to 120 min. The risk of unexpected trauma death significantly increased as ER stay time increased over 90 min (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that all medical staff should work together effectively on high-risk patients in the ER, bringing them immediately to the OR according to their level of risk. If injured patients need emergency trauma surgery, ER stay times should be kept as short as possible to reduce unexpected trauma death.     

Outcome of Tumor-Specific Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: The Impact of Laparoscopic Resection

Objective

The study aimed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer in 1,063 consecutive cases in a single center.

Methods

We performed an analysis of 11 years of experience in rectal cancer surgery and compared the outcome of laparoscopic and open surgery. Multivariate and subgroup analysis was performed to look at the effect of the level of tumor and stage of disease on short-term outcomes like conversion rate, anastomotic leak rate, length of stay, complication rate, 30-day mortality, and long-term outcomes like local recurrence and survival.

Results

A total of 1,063 patients underwent rectal resection with 470 (44.2 %) patients undergoing the laparoscopic approach. Groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, or co-morbidities, and the operating time was longer in the laparoscopic group (210 vs. 150 min; p value < 0.001). A conversion rate of 6.8 % was noted, with an anastomotic leak rate of 3.87 % in the open group and 2.97 % in the laparoscopic group. The laparoscopic group had a lower blood loss (100 vs. 350 ml; p < 0.001), lower complication rates, and shorter length of stay (6 vs. 9 days). The local recurrence rate was comparable, and the laparoscopic approach had better overall and cancer-specific survival, even after adjusting for stages. The laparoscopic approach was an independent factor associated with better overall and cancer-specific survival on multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

We confirmed the oncological safety of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Laparoscopic surgery also showed superiority in the short-term and long-term outcomes of rectal cancer.     

Single-port laparoscopic colorectal resections in obese patients are as safe and effective as conventional laparoscopy

Background

Obese patients pose additional operative technical difficulties, and it is unclear if the outcomes of single-port colorectal surgery are equivalent to those of conventional laparoscopy in such patients. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative variables and short-term outcomes of single-port versus conventional laparoscopy in obese patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Patients and methods

Obese patients (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) undergoing single-port laparoscopic colorectal resections between March 2009 and September 2012 were case matched 1:1 with obese counterparts undergoing conventional (multi-port) laparoscopic surgery based on diagnosis and operation type.

Results

Thirty-seven patients who underwent single-port surgery were matched with 37 conventional laparoscopic counterparts. Male gender predominated in the single-port group (26 vs 15, p = 0.02). The number of patients with a history of previous abdominal operations (17 vs 13, p = 0.48) and ASA score (3 vs 2, p = 0.6) were similar between the groups. No differences were observed with respect to conversion rate (2 vs 5, p = 0.43), operative time (146 vs 150 min, p = 0.48), estimated blood loss (159 vs 183 ml, p = 0.99), time to first flatus (3 vs 3 days, p = 0.91), time to first bowel movement (3 vs 4 days, p = 0.62), length of hospital stay (7 vs 6 days, p = 0.37), or reoperation (2 vs 1, p > 0.99), and readmission rates (2 vs 2, p > 0.99). There were no deaths.

Conclusion

For obese patients undergoing colorectal resections, single-port laparoscopy appears to be as safe and effective as conventional laparoscopy.     

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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