Is minimally invasive colon resection better than traditional approaches?: First comprehensive national examination with propensity score matching
- PMID: 24352653
- PMCID: PMC4036435
- DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3660
Is minimally invasive colon resection better than traditional approaches?: First comprehensive national examination with propensity score matching
Abstract
Importance: Minimally invasive colectomies are increasingly popular options for colon resection.
Objective: To compare the perioperative outcomes and costs of robot-assisted colectomy (RC), laparoscopic colectomy (LC), and open colectomy (OC).
Design, setting, and participants: The US Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was used to examine outcomes and costs before and after propensity score matching across the 3 surgical approaches. This study involved a sample of US hospital discharges from 2008 to 2010 and all patients 21 years of age or older who underwent elective colectomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES In-hospital mortality, complications, ostomy rates, conversion to open procedure, length of stay, discharge disposition, and cost.
Results: Of the 244129 colectomies performed during the study period, 126284 (51.7%) were OCs, 116261 (47.6%) were LCs, and 1584 (0.6%) were RCs. In comparison with OC, LC was associated with a lower mortality rate (0.4% vs 2.0%), lower complication rate (19.8% vs 33.2%), lower ostomy rate (3.5 vs 13.0%), shorter median length of stay (4 vs 6 days), a higher routine discharge rate (86.1% vs 68.4%), and lower overall cost than OC ($11742 vs $13666) (all P<.05). Comparison between RC and LC showed no significant differences with respect to in-hospital mortality (0.0% vs 0.7%), complication rates (14.7% vs 18.5%), ostomy rates (3.0% vs 5.1%), conversions to open procedure (5.7% vs 9.9%), and routine discharge rates (88.7% vs 88.5%) (all P>.05). However, RC incurred a higher overall hospitalization cost than LC ($14847 vs $11966, P<.001).
Conclusions and relevance: In this nationwide comparison of minimally invasive approaches for colon resection, LC demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes and lower cost than OC. Robot-assisted colectomy was equivalent in most clinical outcomes to LC but incurred a higher cost.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures
Comment in
-
The robot has no role in elective colon surgery.JAMA Surg. 2014 Feb;149(2):184. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3671. JAMA Surg. 2014. PMID: 24352577 No abstract available.
References
-
- Robinson CN, Chen GJ, Balentine CJ, et al. Minimally invasive surgery is underutilized for colon cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(5):1412–1418. - PubMed
-
- Alkhamesi NA, Martin J, Schlachta CM. Cost-efficiency of laparoscopic versus open colon surgery in a tertiary care center. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(11):3597–3604. - PubMed
-
- Lai JH, Law WL. Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Br Med Bull. 2012;104:61–89. - PubMed
-
- Weeks JC, Nelson H, Gelber S, Sargent D, Schroeder G. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST) Study Group. Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2002;287(3):321–328. - PubMed
-
- Laparoscopically assisted colectomy is as safe and effective as open colectomy in people with colon cancer: abstracted from. Nelson H, Sargent D, Wieand HS. for the Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group: a comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350:2050–2059. Cancer Treat Rev. 2004;30(8):707–709. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
