RESUMEN
Introduction: There are standard treatment guidelines for the surgical management of rectal cancer, that are advocated by recognized physician societies. But, owing to disparities in access and affordability of various treatment options, there remains an unmet need for personalizing these international guidelines to Indian settings. Methods: Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (CRSA) set up the Indian rectal cancer expert group, with a pre-defined selection criterion and comprised of the leading surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons managing rectal cancer in India. Following the constitution of the expert Group, members identified three areas of focus and 12 clinical questions. A thorough review of the literature was performed, and the evidence was graded as per the levels of evidence by Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The consensus was built using the modified Delphi methodology of consensus development. A consensus statement was accepted only if ≥75% of the experts were in agreement. Results: Using the results of the review of the literature and experts' opinions; the expert group members drafted and agreed on the final consensus statements, and these were classified as "strong or weak", based on the GRADE framework. Conclusion: The expert group adapted international guidelines for the surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer to Indian settings. It will be vital to disseminate these to the wider surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons' community in India.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The proportion of the elderly (≥80 years old) patient population in the United States is increasing. Consequently, surgeons are more involved in the care of these patients than they had been in the past. Therefore, surgeons must re-evaluate their prior assumptions about their surgical management of octogenarian patients. Although open thoracotomy is a popular approach for pulmonary lobectomy, minimally invasive techniques are associated with improved outcomes in this frail patient population. Our goal was to evaluate perioperative outcomes of standard open lobectomy to both video-assisted thoracoscopic and robotic-assisted lobectomy in patients ≥80 years old. METHODS: Octogenarian patients, who underwent elective pulmonary lobectomy from January 1, 2011 through September 30, 2015, were identified from the National Premier Healthcare Database. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed between robotic-assisted and open lobectomy populations and between video-assisted thoracoscopic and open lobectomy populations. Rates of perioperative outcomes from each comparison were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 1,849 octogenarian patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria, propensity-score matched (1:1) comparative analyses of robotic-assisted lobectomy (n=232) and open lobectomy (n=232) patients as well as video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy (n=562) and open lobectomy (n=562) patients were made. Both robotic-assisted and video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy cohorts were associated with shorter lengths of stay (both P<0.001) and higher rates of discharge to home compared to open lobectomy (P=0.0435 and P=0.0037, respectively). Robotic-assisted lobectomy was associated with fewer postoperative complications compared to open lobectomy (P=0.0249). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive lobectomy is a viable surgical option in octogenarians and provides improved outcomes compared to open thoracotomy in a retrospective cohort. Carefully selected patients can achieve excellent outcomes.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The role for the robotic-assisted approach as a minimally invasive alternative to open colorectal surgery is in the evaluation phase. While the benefits of minimally invasive colorectal surgery when compared to the open approach have been clearly demonstrated, the adoption of laparoscopy has been limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes, hospital and payer characteristics of patients undergoing robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease in the United States. METHODS: This is a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis. The Premier Healthcare Database was queried for patients with diverticular disease. Patients with diverticular disease who underwent robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease from January 2013 through September 2015 were included. Propensity-score matching (1:1) facilitated comparison of robotic-assisted versus open approach and robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic approach. Peri-operative outcomes were assessed for both comparisons. RESULTS: There were several outcomes advantages for the robotic-assisted approach when compared to laparoscopic and open sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease that included significantly fewer conversions to open (P = .0002), shorter hospital length of stay, fewer postoperative complications-ileus, wound complications, and acute renal failure-and more patients discharged directly to home. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic-assisted minimally invasive approach to elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease results in favorable intra-operative and postoperative outcomes when compared to laparoscopic and open approaches.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Diverticulares/cirugía , Laparoscopía , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados , Enfermedades del Sigmoide/cirugía , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Colectomía/efectos adversos , Colectomía/métodos , Colectomía/estadística & datos numéricos , Bases de Datos Factuales , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos , Femenino , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Puntaje de Propensión , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estados Unidos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Crohn's disease is an incurable inflammatory disorder that can affect the entire gastrointestinal tract. While medical management is considered first-line treatment, approximately 70-90% of patients with Crohn's disease will require at least one surgical intervention during the course of their lifetimes. Traditionally, abdominal surgery for Crohn's disease has been performed via an open approach with an increasing adoption of minimally invasive techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare postoperative outcomes from an initial national experience with robotic-assisted ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease. Patients who underwent elective ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease by robotic-assisted or open approaches from 2011 to Q3 2015 were identified using ICD-9 codes from the Premier Healthcare Database. Propensity-score matching (1:1) was performed using age, gender, race, Charlson index score, and year of surgery to form comparable cohorts in order to compare the robotic-assisted and open groups. 3641 patients underwent elective ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease during the study period (1910 [52.5%] open and 109 [3%] robotic-assisted). Post-matched comparison of cohorts (n = 108 per cohort) showed that robotic-assisted cases were longer by a mean of 60 min (p < 0.0001), had shorter length of hospital stay by a median of 2 days (p < 0.001) and a lower 30-day complication rate (24% vs. 38%; p = 0.039). This national database assessment of patients undergoing elective ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease demonstrated that a robotic-assisted approach was associated with longer operative times, shorter length of hospital stay and lower 30-day complication rates compared to open approach.
Asunto(s)
Colon/cirugía , Enfermedad de Crohn/cirugía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos del Sistema Digestivo/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos/métodos , Íleon/cirugía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/métodos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tempo Operativo , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Puntaje de Propensión , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Reports of surgical outcomes comparing proficient surgeons who perform either robotic-assisted or video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy are lacking. We evaluate the comparative effectiveness of robotic-assisted and video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomies by surgeons who performed 20 or more annual surgical procedures in a national database. METHODS: Patients 18 years or older, who underwent elective lobectomy by surgeons who performed 20 or more annual lobectomies by robotic-assisted or thoracoscopic approach from January 2011 through September 2015, were identified in the Premier Healthcare database with the use of codes from the ninth revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. Propensity-score matching based on patient and hospital characteristics and by year was performed 1:1 to identify comparable cohorts for analysis (n = 838 in each cohort). All tests were two-sided, with statistical significance set at p less than 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 23,779 patients received an elective lobectomy during the study period: 9,360 were performed by video-assisted thoracoscopic approach and 2,994 were by robotic-assisted approach. Propensity-matched comparison of lobectomies performed by surgeons who performed 20 or more procedures annually (n = 838) showed that robotic-assisted procedures had a longer mean operative time by 25 minutes (mean 247.1 minutes vs 222.6 minutes, p < 0.0001) but had a lower conversion-to-open rate (4.8% vs 8.0%, p = 0.007) and a lower 30-day complication rate (33.4% vs 39.2%, p = 0.0128). Transfusion rates and 30-day mortality rates were similar between the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: When surgical outcomes are limited to surgeons who perform 20 or more annual procedures, the robotic-assisted approach is associated with a lower conversion-to-open rate and lower 30-day complication rate when than video-assisted thoracoscopic surgeons, with a mean operative time difference of 25 minutes.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Pulmonares/cirugía , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Neumonectomía/métodos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/métodos , Cirugía Torácica Asistida por Video/métodos , Anciano , Bases de Datos Factuales , Supervivencia sin Enfermedad , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos/métodos , Femenino , Hospitales de Alto Volumen , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidad , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tempo Operativo , Dolor Postoperatorio/epidemiología , Dolor Postoperatorio/fisiopatología , Neumonectomía/mortalidad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/diagnóstico , Puntaje de Propensión , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/mortalidad , Análisis de Supervivencia , Cirugía Torácica Asistida por Video/mortalidadRESUMEN
AIMS: To compare (1) complication and (2) conversion rates to open surgery (OS) from laparoscopic surgery (LS) and robotic-assisted surgery (RA) for rectal cancer patients who underwent rectal resection. (3) To identify patient, physician, and hospital predictors of conversion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A US-based database study was conducted utilizing the 2012-2014 Premier Healthcare Data, including rectal cancer patients ≥18 with rectal resection. ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedural codes were utilized to identify surgical approaches, conversions to OS, and surgical complications. Propensity score matching on patient, surgeon, and hospital level characteristics was used to create comparable groups of RA\LS patients (n = 533 per group). Predictors of conversion from LS and RA to OS were identified with stepwise logistic regression in the unmatched sample. RESULTS: Post-match results suggested comparable perioperative complication rates (RA 29% vs LS 29%; p = .7784); whereas conversion rates to OS were 12% for RA vs 29% for LS (p < .0001). Colorectal surgeons (RA 9% vs LS 23%), general surgeons (RA 13% vs LS 35%), and smaller bed-size hospitals (RA 14% vs LS 33%) have reduced conversion rates for RA vs LS (p < .0001). Statistically significant predictors of conversion included LS, non-colorectal surgeon, and smaller bed-size hospitals. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective observational study limitations apply. Analysis of the hospital administrative database was subject to the data captured in the database and the accuracy of coding. Propensity score matching limitations apply. RA and LS groups were balanced with respect to measured patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to LS, RA offers a higher probability of completing a successful minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer patients undergoing rectal resection without exacerbating complications. Male, obese, or moderately-to-severely ill patients had higher conversion rates. While colorectal surgeons had lower conversion rates from RA than LS, the reduction was magnified for general surgeons and smaller bed-size hospitals.
Asunto(s)
Laparoscopía , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Neoplasias del Recto/cirugía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Bases de Datos Factuales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Puntaje de Propensión , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted lobectomy (RL) is becoming a popular alternative technique to video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy (VL), although open lobectomy (OL) remains the most common approach. The objective of this study is to provide a comparative analysis of perioperative clinical outcomes from elective RL, VL, and OL. METHODS: The Premier Healthcare Database was analyzed for lobectomies performed from January 1, 2011, to September 30, 2015. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis and procedure codes were used to identify surgical approaches, complications, and mortality. Propensity score matching (1:1) for patient and hospital characteristics allowed comparison of RL versus OL (n = 2,775 each) and RL versus VL (n = 2,951 each). RESULTS: Compared with OL in propensity matched analysis, RL was associated with a lower postoperative complication rate (p < 0.0001), shorter hospital stay (p < 0.0001), and lower mortality rate (p = 0.0282). Patients in the RL group were more likely to be discharged home than to a transitional health care facility (p < 0.0001). Compared with VL, the RL group had a lower conversion rate to thoracotomy (p < 0.0001), lower overall postoperative complication rate (p = 0.0061), and shorter hospital stay (p = 0.006). The RL patients also were more likely to be discharged home than to a transitional health care facility (p = 0.0108). The postoperative mortality rates of RL and VL were similar (p = 0.44). There was no difference in iatrogenic injuries when comparing RL with OL and RL with VL (p = 0.1284 and p = 0.5477, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted lobectomy was associated with improved outcomes for certain perioperative clinical variables, including shorter length of stay and lower complication rates. It was also was associated with a lower conversion rate to OL compared with VL.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Pulmonares/patología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/cirugía , Neumonectomía/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/métodos , Cirugía Torácica Asistida por Video/métodos , Toracotomía/métodos , Anciano , Estudios de Cohortes , Bases de Datos Factuales , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidad , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neumonectomía/efectos adversos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/mortalidad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/fisiopatología , Pronóstico , Puntaje de Propensión , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/efectos adversos , Análisis de Supervivencia , Cirugía Torácica Asistida por Video/efectos adversos , Toracotomía/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy evolved from the traditional multiport laparoscopic technique. Prior trials have demonstrated improved cosmesis with the single-incision technique. Robotic single-site surgery minimizes the technical difficulties associated with laparoscopic single-incision approach. This is the first prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing robotic single-site cholecystectomy (RSSC) and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC) in terms of cosmesis and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic benign gallbladder disease were randomized to RSSC or MPLC. Data included perioperative variables such as operative time, conversion and complications and cosmesis satisfaction, body image perception, quality of life using validated questionnaires, at postoperative visits of 2, 6 weeks and 3 months. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six patients were randomized to RSSC (N = 83) and MPLC (N = 53) at 8 institutions. Both cohorts were dominated by higher enrollment of females (RSSC = 78%, MPLC = 92%). The RSSC and MPLC cohorts were otherwise statistically matched. Operative time was longer for RSSC (61 min vs. 44 min, P < 0.0001). There were no differences in complication rates. RSSC demonstrated a significant superiority in cosmesis satisfaction and body image perception (P value < 0.05 at every follow-up). There was no statistically significant difference in patient-reported quality of life. Multivariate analysis of female patients demonstrated significantly higher preference for RSSC over MPLC in cosmesis satisfaction and body image perception with no difference seen in overall quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this trial show that RSSC is associated with improved cosmesis satisfaction and body image perception without a difference in observed complication rate. The uncompromised safety and the improved cosmesis satisfaction and body image perception provided by RSSC for female patients support consideration of the robotic single-site approach. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01932216.