Steven Mills

Laparoscopic ileostomy closure with intracorporeal anastomosis offers potential advantages over open reversal with extracorporeal anastomosis, including earlier return of bowel function and reduced postoperative pain. In this study, we aim to compare the outcome and cost of laparoscopic ileostomy reversal (utilizing either intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis) with open ileostomy reversal.

National examination of open proctectomy (OP), laparoscopic proctectomy (LP), and robotic proctectomy (RP) in pathological outcomes and overall survival (OS). Surgical management for rectal adenocarcinoma is evolving towards utilization of LP and RP. However, the oncological impacts of a minimally invasive approach to rectal cancer have yet to be defined. Retrospective review of the National Cancer Database identified patients with nonmetastatic locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma from 2010 to 2014, who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgical resection, and adjuvant therapy. Cases were stratified by surgical approach. Multivariate analysis was used to compare pathological outcomes. Cox proportional-hazard modeling and Kaplan–Meier analyses were used to estimate long-term OS. Of 6313 cases identified, 53.8% underwent OP, 31.8% underwent LP, and 14.3% underwent RP. Higher-volume academic/research and comprehensive community centers combined to perform 80% of laparoscopic cases and 83% of robotic cases. In an intent-to-treat model, multivariate analysis demonstrated superior circumferential margin negativity rates with LP compared with OP (odds ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.02–1.77, P = 0.036). Cox proportional-hazard modeling demonstrated a lower death hazard ratio for LP compared with OP (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.67–0.99, P = 0.037). Kaplan–Meier analysis demonstrated a 5-year OS of 81% in LP compared with 78% in RP and 76% in OP (P = 0.0198). In the hands of experienced colorectal specialists treating selected patients, LP may be a valuable operative technique that is associated with oncological benefits. Further exploration of pathological outcomes and long-term survival by means of prospective randomized trials may offer more definitive conclusions regarding comparisons of open and minimally invasive technique.

The utilization of minimally invasive surgery is increasing in colorectal surgery. We sought to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent elective open, laparoscopic, and robotic total abdominal colectomy. The NIS database was used to examine the clinical data of patients who underwent an elective total colectomy procedure during 2009–2012. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to compare the three surgical approaches. We sampled a total of 26,721 patients who underwent elective total colectomy. Of these, 16,780 (62.8 %) had an open operation, while 9934 (37.2 %) had a minimally invasive approach (9614 laparoscopic surgery, and 326 robotic surgery). The most common indication for an operation was ulcerative colitis (31 %). Patients who underwent open surgery had significantly higher mortality and morbidity compared to laparoscopic (AOR 2.48, 1.30, P < 0.01) and robotic approaches (AOR 1.04, 1.30, P < 0.01 and P = 0.04, respectively). There was no significant difference in mortality and morbidity between the laparoscopic and robotic approaches (AOR 0.96, 1.03, P = 0.10, P = 0.78). However, conversion rate of laparoscopic surgery to open was significantly higher than that of robotic approach (13.3 vs. 1.5 %, P < 0.01). Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery had significantly lower total hospital charges compared to patients who underwent open surgery (mean difference = $21,489, P < 0.01). Also, total hospital charges for a robotic approach were significantly higher than for a laparoscopic approach (mean difference = $15,595, P < 0.01). Minimally invasive approaches to total colectomy are safe, with the advantage of lower mortality and morbidity compared to an open approach. Although there was no significant difference in the morbidity between minimally invasive approaches, robotic surgery had a significantly lower conversion rate compared to laparoscopic approach. Total hospital charges are significantly higher in robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic approach.