Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundConversion from minimally invasive to open colorectal surgery remains common and costly. Robotic colorectal surgery is associated with lower rates of conversion than laparoscopy, but institutions and payers remain concerned about equipment and implementation costs. Recognizing that reimbursement reform and bundled payments expand perspectives on cost to include the entire surgical episode, we evaluated the role of minimally invasive conversion in total payments.MethodsThis is an observational study from a linked data registry including clinical data from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative and payment data from the Michigan Value Collaborative between July 2012 and April 2015. We evaluated colorectal resections initiated with open and minimally invasive approaches, and compared reported risk-adjusted and price-standardized 30-day episode payments and their components.ResultsWe identified 1061 open, 1604 laparoscopic, and 275 robotic colorectal resections. Adjusted episode payments were significantly higher for open operations than for minimally invasive procedures completed without conversion ($19,489 vs. $15,518, p < 0.001). The conversion rate was significantly higher with laparoscopic than robotic operations (15.1 vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). Adjusted episode payments for minimally invasive operations converted to open were significantly higher than for those completed by minimally invasive approaches ($18,098 vs. $15,518, p < 0.001). Payments for operations completed robotically were greater than those completed laparoscopically ($16,949 vs. $15,250, p < 0.001), but the difference was substantially decreased when conversion to open cases was included ($16,939 vs. $15,699, p = 0.041).ConclusionEpisode payments for open colorectal surgery exceed both laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive options. Conversion to open surgery significantly increases the payments associated with minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Because conversion rates in robotic colorectal operations are half of those in laparoscopy, the excess expenditures attributable to robotics are attenuated by consideration of the cost of conversions.

Surgical procedures are key drivers of pain development and opioid utilization globally. Various organizations have generated guidance on postoperative pain management, enhanced recovery strategies, multimodal analgesic and anesthetic techniques, and postoperative opioid prescribing. Still, comprehensive integration of these recommendations into standard practice at the institutional level remains elusive, and persistent postoperative pain and opioid use pose significant societal burdens. The multitude of guidance publications, many different healthcare providers involved in executing them, evolution of surgical technique, and complexities of perioperative care transitions all represent challenges to process improvement. This review seeks to summarize and integrate key recommendations into a “roadmap” for institutional adoption of perioperative analgesic and opioid optimization strategies. We present a brief review of applicable statistics and definitions as impetus for prioritizing both analgesia and opioid exposure in surgical quality improvement. We then review recommended modalities at each phase of perioperative care. We showcase the value of interprofessional collaboration in implementing and sustaining perioperative performance measures related to pain management and analgesic exposure, including those from the patient perspective. Surgery centers across the globe should adopt an integrated, collaborative approach to the twin goals of optimal pain management and opioid stewardship across the care continuum.

The primary objective of this study was to retrospectively compare short-term outcomes of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomies for benign and malignant disease. Recent studies suggest potential short-term outcomes advantages for the intracorporeal anastomosis technique. This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched comparison of intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis techniques for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomy between January 11, 2010, and July 21, 2016. After propensity score-matching, there were a total of 1029 minimal invasive surgery cases for analysis-379 right colectomies (335 robotic-assisted and 44 laparoscopic) done with an intracorporeal anastomosis and 650 right colectomies (253 robotic-assisted and 397 laparoscopic) done with an extracorporeal anastomosis. There were no significant differences in any preoperative patient characteristics between groups. The minimally invasive intracorporeal anastomosis group had significantly longer operative times (p<0.0001), lower conversion to open rate (p = 0.01), shorter hospital length of stay (p = 0.02) and lower complication rate from after discharge to 30-days (p = 0.04) than the extracorporeal anastomosis group. This comparison shows several clinical outcomes advantages for the intracorporeal anastomosis technique in minimally invasive right colectomy. These data may guide future refinements in minimally invasive training techniques and help surgeons choose among different minimally invasive options.

Robotic assistance may offer unique advantages over conventional laparoscopy in colorectal operations. This prospective observational study compared operative measures and postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic abdominal and pelvic resections for benign and malignant disease. From 2005 through 2012, 200 (58%) laparoscopic and 144 (42%) robotic operations were performed by a single surgeon. After adjustment for differences in demographics and disease processes using propensity score matching, all laparoscopic operations had a significantly shorter operative time (P < .01), laparoscopic left colectomies had a longer length of hospital stay (2009 and 2010: 6.5 vs 3.6 days, P = .01); and laparoscopic right colectomies had a higher risk for overall complications (P = .03) and postoperative ileus (P = .04). There were no significant differences in the outcomes of pelvic operations (P = .15). Compared with conventional laparoscopy, some types of robotic-assisted colorectal operations may offer advantages regarding postoperative length of stay and perioperative complications.

BackgroundSame-day discharge after colectomy in enhanced recovery pathways has been shown to be feasible. It is not clear how early patients with rectal resections may be safely discharged. The study aim was to determine if patients discharged ≤ 3 days after rectal resections are associated with increased rates of emergency department (ED) visits and hospital readmissions.MethodsRetrospective analysis of enhanced recovery low anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection, and proctocolectomy patients in a prospectively maintained single institution colorectal surgery database from 01/01/2018 to 07/15/2022. Clinic visits were scheduled within 4–7 days and at 30 days after discharge, and every 1–2 weeks for stoma patients until no longer needed. Logistic regression models were used to analyze the association of discharge on postoperative days (POD)-1–3, POD-4–5, and POD ≥ 6 days with incidence of ED visits and readmissions.ResultsA total of 118 patients met inclusion criteria, 76 with stomas. Median postoperative length of stay was 5 [IQR 6.5] days. Mean age was 58.6 years; 59.3% were ASA-3; and 69.5% had a minimally invasive surgical approach. ED visits were not significantly different between discharge-day groups (p = 0.096). No patients were discharged same-day, one without a stoma was discharged on POD-1, ten patients (2 with stomas) on POD-2, and twenty-four patients (13 with stomas) on POD-3. ED visits were lowest for the POD-1–3 group (14.3%) but not significantly different than later discharge groups (p = 0.166). Readmission rate was also lowest for the POD-1–3 group (11.4%) and also not significantly different than later discharge groups (p = 0.261) and this was confirmed with logistic regression. Complication rate was lowest in the POD-1–3 group (p < 0.001).ConclusionEarly discharge after enhanced recovery partial or complete proctectomy is not associated with increased ED visits and readmissions. Follow up studies should identify post-discharge resources that allow safe early discharge and that may be standardized and generalizable.

Background Until randomized trials mature, large database analyses assist in determining the role of robotics in colorectal surgery. ACS NSQIP database coding now allows differentiation between laparoscopic (LC) and robotic (RC) colorectal procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare LC and RC outcomes by analyzing the ACS NSQIP database. Methods The ACS NSQIP database was queried to identify patients who had undergone RC and LC during 2013. Demographic characteristics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were identified. Using propensity score matching, abdominal and pelvic colorectal operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Results A total of 11,477 cases were identified. In the abdomen, 7790 LC and 299 RC cases were identified, and 2057 LC and 331 RC cases were identified in the pelvis. There were significant differences in operative time, conversion to an open procedure in the pelvis, and hospital length of stay. RC operative times were significantly longer in both abdominal and pelvic cases. Conversion rates in the pelvis were less for RC when compared to LC—10.0 and 13.7 %, respectively ( p  = 0.01). Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for RC abdominal cases than for LC abdominal cases (4.3 vs. 5.3 days, p  < 0.001) and for RC pelvic cases when compared to LC pelvic cases (4.5 vs. 5.3 days, p  < 0.001). There were no significant differences in surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, wound complications, anastomotic leak, sepsis/shock, or need for reoperation within 30 days. Conclusion As the robotic platform continues to grow in colorectal surgery and as technical upgrades continue to advance, comparison of outcomes requires continuous reevaluation. This study demonstrated that robotic operations have longer operative times, decreased hospital length of stay, and decreased rates of conversion to open in the pelvis. These findings warrant continued evaluation of the role of minimally invasive technical upgrades in colorectal surgery.

Appendiceal cancers may be difficult to diagnose even after comprehensive investigation. This report of locally advanced perforated appendiceal adenocarcinoma attached to the terminal ileum, cecum, and rectosigmoid illustrates the management challenges that require comprehensive knowledge of pathologic variations and range from simple appendectomy to cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. This report of a patient with locally advanced perforated appendiceal adenocarcinoma at surgery and normal appendiceal orifice at preoperative colonoscopy reveals the diagnostic challenges, pathologic variations, and treatment options that range from simple appendectomy to cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC. Histopathologic confirmation may not be possible prior to operative intervention.

Background The most appropriate treatment for early-stage rectal cancers is controversial. The advantages of local excision regarding morbidity and function must be weighed against poorer oncologic efficacy. This study aimed to clarify further the role for local excision in the treatment of rectal cancer. Methods A systematic review of Medline, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases was conducted. Relevant studies were selected using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data addressing five key questions about outcomes of local versus radical resection of rectal cancer were analyzed. Results The 16 studies identified by this study were mostly retrospective, and none were randomized. Local excision was associated with fewer complications and better functional outcome than radical resection. Of 12 studies evaluating local recurrence, 6 showed a higher local recurrence rate among patients who underwent local excision. Two additional studies showed no increase in local recurrence rate among patients who underwent local excision of T1 lesions but a significantly higher local recurrence rate among those who underwent local excision of T2 lesions. High histologic grade, angiolymphatic invasion, perineural invasion, and depth within submucosa were features associated with a higher risk of local recurrence. In 7 of 15 studies, long-term survival was reduced compared with that of patients who underwent radical resection. Conclusions Although local excision for early-stage rectal cancer is associated with increased local recurrence and decreased overall survival compared with radical resection, local excision may be appropriate for select individuals who have T1 tumors with no adverse pathologic features.

Studies comparing opioid needs between benign and malignant colorectal diseases are inconclusive. Single institution analysis of prospectively maintained colorectal surgery database. Multiple regression analyses done on perioperative numeric pain scores (NPS) and opioids prescribed at discharge. 641 patients in Benign and 276 patients in the Malignant group. Unadjusted comparison revealed significantly higher NPS for the Benign than the Malignant group preoperative and postoperative day 0 (after surgery), 1, 2, and 3 (all p ​≤ ​0.001). Opioids prescribed at discharge were significantly higher in the Benign group (60.0% vs 51.1%, p ​= ​0.018). After regression analysis, there was no longer a significant difference in NPS (B ​= ​0.703, p ​= ​0.095) and opioids prescribed between groups [OR ​= ​0.803 (95%CI 0.586, 1.1), p ​= ​0.173]. Pain and opioids prescribed at discharge are not significantly different between benign and malignant diseases in an enhanced recovery pain management pathway that maximizes non-opioid multimodal analgesic strategies. [Display omitted] •Pain after colorectal surgery is not higher for benign versus malignant disease.•Opioids prescribed at discharge are not more for benign versus malignant disease.•Enhanced recovery pathways should target other risk variables for opioid needs.

BackgroundStudies to date show contrasting conclusions when comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses for minimally invasive right colectomy. Large multi-center prospective studies comparing perioperative outcomes between these two techniques are needed. The purpose of this study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses outcomes for robotic assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy.MethodsMulti-center, prospective, observational study of patients with malignant or benign disease scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic-assisted right colectomy. Outcomes included conversion rate, gastrointestinal recovery, and complication rates.ResultsThere were 280 patients: 156 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) group and 124 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) group. The EA group was older (mean age 67 vs. 65 years, p = 0.05) and had fewer white (81% vs. 90%, p = 0.05) and Hispanic (2% vs. 12%, p = 0.003) patients. The EA group had more patients with comorbidities (82% vs. 72%, p = 0.04) while there was no significant difference in individual comorbidities between groups. IA was associated with fewer conversions to open and hand-assisted laparoscopic approaches (p = 0.007), shorter extraction site incision length (4.9 vs. 6.2 cm; p ≤ 0.0001), and longer operative time (156.9 vs. 118.2 min). Postoperatively, patients with IA had shorter time to first flatus, (1.5 vs. 1.8 days; p ≤ 0.0001), time to first bowel movement (1.6 vs. 2.0 days; p = 0.0005), time to resume soft/regular diet (29.0 vs. 37.5 h; p = 0.0014), and shorter length of hospital stay (median, 3 vs. 4 days; p ≤ 0.0001). Postoperative complication rates were comparable between groups.ConclusionIn this prospective, multi-center study of minimally invasive right colectomy across 20 institutions, IA was associated with significant improvements in conversion rates, return of bowel function, and shorter hospital stay, as well as significantly longer operative times compared to EA. These data validate current efforts to increase training and adoption of the IA technique for minimally invasive right colectomy.