Laparoscopic vs open colectomy for colon cancer: results from a large nationwide population-based analysis

Abstract

Purpose: Laparoscopic colectomy has only recently become an accepted technique for the treatment of colon cancer. We sought to analyze factors that affect the type of resection performed and associated outcomes from a large nationwide database.

Methods: All admissions with a primary diagnosis of colon cancer undergoing elective resection were selected from the 2003 and 2004 Nationwide Inpatient Samples. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were used to compare outcome measures and identify independent predictors of a laparoscopic approach.

Results: We identified 98,923 admissions (mean age 69.2 years). They were predominately Caucasian (81%), had localized disease (63%), had private insurance (56%), and had surgery performed in urban hospitals (87%). Laparoscopic resection was performed in 3,296 cases (3.3%) and was associated with a lower complication rate (18% vs 22%), shorter length of stay (6 vs 7.6 days), decreased need for skilled aftercare (5% vs 11%), and lower mortality (0.6% vs 1.4%, all P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the total hospital charges between the groups ($34,685 vs $34,178, P=0.19). Independent predictors of undergoing laparoscopic resection were age<70 (odds ratio [OR]=1.2, P<0.01), national region (Midwest OR=1.9, West OR=2.0, P<0.01), and lower disease stage (OR=2.5, P<0.01). Ethnic category and insurance status showed no significant association with operative method (P>0.05).

Conclusions: Laparoscopy for colon cancer is associated with improved outcomes in unadjusted analysis and similar charges compared to open resection. We found no influence of race or payer status on the utilization of a laparoscopic approach.