Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes

Wissam J Halabi, Celeste Y Kang, Mehraneh D Jafari, Vinh Q Nguyen, Joseph C Carmichael, Steven Mills, Michael J Stamos, Alessio Pigazzi, Wissam J Halabi, Celeste Y Kang, Mehraneh D Jafari, Vinh Q Nguyen, Joseph C Carmichael, Steven Mills, Michael J Stamos, Alessio Pigazzi

Abstract

Background: While robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is becoming increasingly popular, data comparing its outcomes to other established techniques remain limited to small case series. Moreover, there are no large studies evaluating the trends of RACS at the national level.

Methods: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009-2010 was retrospectively reviewed for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal procedures performed for cancer, benign polyps, and diverticular disease. Trends in different settings, indications, and demographics were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare selected outcomes between RACS and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

Results: An estimated 128,288 colorectal procedures were performed through minimally invasive techniques over the study period, and RACS was used in 2.78 % of cases. From 2009 to 2010, the use of robotics increased in all hospital settings but was still more common in large, urban, and teaching hospitals. Rectal cancer was the most common indication for RACS, with a tendency toward its selective use in male patients. On multivariate analysis, robotic surgery was associated with higher hospital charges in colonic ($11,601.39; 95 % CI 6,921.82-16,280.97) and rectal cases ($12,964.90; 95 % CI 6,534.79-19,395.01), and higher rates of postoperative bleeding in colonic cases (OR = 2.15; 95 % CI 1.27- 3.65). RACS was similar to CLS with respect to length of hospital stay, morbidity, anastomotic leak, and ileus. Conversion to open surgery was significantly lower in robotic colonic and rectal procedures (0.41; 95 % CI 0.25-0.67) and (0.10; 95 % CI 0.06-0.16), respectively.

Conclusions: The use of RACS is still limited in the United States. However, its use increased over the study period despite higher associated charges and no real advantages over laparoscopy in terms of outcome. The one advantage is lower conversion rates.

References

    1. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Jun;16(6):1480-7
    1. Med Care. 2009 Jun;47(6):626-33
    1. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Feb 10;30(5):513-8
    1. Arch Surg. 2012 Aug;147(8):724-31
    1. Ann Surg. 2011 May;253(5):890-9
    1. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012 Feb;27(2):233-41
    1. Surg Endosc. 2002 Aug;16(8):1187-91
    1. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2004 Dec;14(6):311-5
    1. Surg Endosc. 2002 Oct;16(10):1389-402
    1. Surg Endosc. 2012 Jan;26(1):1-11
    1. J Health Care Finance. 2003 Summer;29(4):29-42
    1. Eur Urol. 2012 Sep;62(3):382-404
    1. Surg Endosc. 2006 Oct;20(10):1521-5
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012 Feb;55(2):228-33
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010 Dec;53(12):1611-7
    1. JSLS. 2011 Apr-Jun;15(2):182-7
    1. N Engl J Med. 2004 May 13;350(20):2050-9
    1. Surg Endosc. 2008 May;22(5):1181-7
    1. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1991 Sep;1(3):144-50
    1. J Urol. 2012 Jun;187(6):2087-92
    1. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Jun;17(6):1614-20
    1. Ann Surg. 2010 Aug;252(2):254-62
    1. JSLS. 2009 Apr-Jun;13(2):176-83
    1. Semin Laparosc Surg. 2004 Jun;11(2):63-71
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004 Dec;47(12):2162-8
    1. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2007 Dec;22(12):1515-21
    1. J Gastrointest Surg. 2004 Sep-Oct;8(6):720-6
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011 Mar;54(3):275-82
    1. J Surg Oncol. 2012 Apr 1;105(5):481-7
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003 Dec;46(12):1633-9
    1. J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Jul;215(1):107-14; discussion 114-6
    1. Br J Surg. 2012 Sep;99(9):1219-26
    1. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2002 Feb;12(1):1-5
    1. Arch Surg. 2003 Sep;138(9):1002-6
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010 Jul;53(7):1000-6
    1. Lancet Oncol. 2005 Jul;6(7):477-84
    1. Eur Urol. 2012 Sep;62(3):431-52
    1. Surg Endosc. 2009 Feb;23(2):438-43
    1. Surg Endosc. 2007 Oct;21(10):1701-8
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008 Nov;51(11):1627-32
    1. Surg Endosc. 2010 Mar;24(3):715-20
    1. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011 Oct;26(10):1317-27
    1. Surg Endosc. 2011 Jan;25(1):199-206
    1. Surg Endosc. 2011 Jan;25(1):240-8
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011 Feb;54(2):144-50
    1. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002 Dec;45(12):1689-94; discussion 1695-6

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe