Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Understanding the Value of Both Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches Compared to the Open Approach in Colorectal Surgery.
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2016; 26(11):850-856JL

Abstract

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.

Authors+Show Affiliations

1 Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine , Birmingham, Alabama.1 Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine , Birmingham, Alabama.1 Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine , Birmingham, Alabama.1 Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine , Birmingham, Alabama.1 Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine , Birmingham, Alabama. 2 Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine , Stanford, California.1 Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine , Birmingham, Alabama.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

27398733

Citation

Hollis, Robert H., et al. "Understanding the Value of Both Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches Compared to the Open Approach in Colorectal Surgery." Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. Part A, vol. 26, no. 11, 2016, pp. 850-856.
Hollis RH, Cannon JA, Singletary BA, et al. Understanding the Value of Both Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches Compared to the Open Approach in Colorectal Surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016;26(11):850-856.
Hollis, R. H., Cannon, J. A., Singletary, B. A., Korb, M. L., Hawn, M. T., & Heslin, M. J. (2016). Understanding the Value of Both Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches Compared to the Open Approach in Colorectal Surgery. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. Part A, 26(11), pp. 850-856.
Hollis RH, et al. Understanding the Value of Both Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches Compared to the Open Approach in Colorectal Surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016;26(11):850-856. PubMed PMID: 27398733.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Understanding the Value of Both Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches Compared to the Open Approach in Colorectal Surgery. AU - Hollis,Robert H, AU - Cannon,Jamie A, AU - Singletary,Brandon A, AU - Korb,Melissa L, AU - Hawn,Mary T, AU - Heslin,Martin J, Y1 - 2016/07/11/ PY - 2016/7/12/pubmed PY - 2017/4/11/medline PY - 2016/7/12/entrez KW - cost-analysis KW - laparascopic colorectal surgery KW - robotic colorectal surgery SP - 850 EP - 856 JF - Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A JO - J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A VL - 26 IS - 11 N2 - 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. SN - 1557-9034 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/27398733/Understanding_the_Value_of_Both_Laparoscopic_and_Robotic_Approaches_Compared_to_the_Open_Approach_in_Colorectal_Surgery_ L2 - https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/lap.2015.0620?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&amp;rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&amp;rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -