Advertisement

Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 23, Issue 10, pp 965–972 | Cite as

A National study on the adoption of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the elderly population: current state and value proposition

  • D. S. KellerEmail author
  • J. Qiu
  • R. P. Kiran
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The economic and clinical benefits of laparoscopic colorectal surgery are proven, yet may be underutilized in appropriate cases, especially in the elderly. Since the elderly constitute the greatest colorectal surgical volume, our goal was to identify trends in utilization and impact of laparoscopy in this cohort.

Methods

A national review of elective inpatient colorectal resections from the Premier Inpatient Database between 2010 and 2015 was performed. Patients were included if elderly (≥ 65 years), then grouped into open or laparoscopic procedures. The main outcome measures were trends in utilization by approach and total costs for the episode of care, length of stay (LOS), readmission, and complications by approach in the elderly. Multivariable regression models controlled for differences across platforms, adjusting for patient demographic, comorbidities and hospital characteristics.

Results

In 70,655 elderly patients evaluated, laparoscopic adoption remained lower than open throughout the study period. Rates increased until 2013, then declined, with increasing rates of open surgery. Laparoscopy was associated with significantly lower mean total costs ($4012 less/case), complications and readmissions (36% and 33% less, respectively), and shorter LOS (2.6 less days) than open cases (all p < 0.0001). When complications occurred, they were less severe and the readmission episodes were less costly with laparoscopy than open colorectal surgery.

Conclusion

The adoption of laparoscopy in the elderly has lagged behind open surgery and even declined in recent years despite being associated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced cost. With this tremendous value proposition to increase use of laparoscopic surgery in the elderly, further work needs to evaluate root causes of the disparity.

Keywords

Minimally invasive surgery Laparoscopic colorectal surgery Elderly Frailty Healthcare outcomes Healthcare costs 

Notes

Funding

The authors received no financial support or funding for this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Ms. Qiu is employed by Medtronic, but there was no payment for the work. Dr. Keller: no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Dr. Kiran: no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    COST Study Group (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, Castells A, Taura P, Pique JM et al (2002) Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 359:2224–2229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, Jeekel J, Kazemier G, Bonjer HJ et al (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH, Kim S, Kang SB, Lim SB et al (2014) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15:767–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der Pas MH, de Lange-de Klerk ES et al (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372:1324–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AM et al (2007) Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 25:3061–3068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delaney CP, Kiran RP, Senagore AJ, Brady K, Fazio VW (2003) Case-matched comparison of clinical and financial outcome after laparoscopic or open colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 238:67–72PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dowson HM, Huang A, Soon Y, Gage H, Lovell DP, Rockall TA (2007) Systematic review of the costs of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 50:908–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noblett SE, Horgan AF (2007) A prospective case-matched comparison of clinical and financial outcomes of open versus laparoscopic colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 21:404–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Delaney CP, Chang E, Senagore AJ, Broder M (2008) Clinical outcomes and resource utilization associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy using a large national database. Ann Surg 247:819–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berto P, Lopatriello S, Aiello A, Corcione F, Spinoglio G, Trapani V et al (2012) Cost of laparoscopy and laparotomy in the surgical treatment of colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc 26:1444–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kang CY, Chaudhry OO, Halabi WJ, Nguyen V, Carmichael JC, Stamos MJ et al (2012) Outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009. Am J Surg 204:952–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jordan J, Dowson H, Gage H, Jackson D, Rockall T (2014) Laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection for cancer and polyps: a cost-effectiveness study. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 6:415–422PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Asgeirsson T, Jrebi N, Feo L, Kerwel T, Luchtefeld M, Senagore AJ (2014) Incremental cost of complications in colectomy: a warranty guided approach to surgical quality improvement. Am J Surg 207:422–426 (discussion 425) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aly OE, Quayyum Z (2012) Has laparoscopic colorectal surgery become more cost-effective over time? Int J Colorectal Dis 27:855–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Crawshaw BP, Chien HL, Augestad KM, Delaney CP (2015) Effect of laparoscopic surgery on health care utilization and costs in patients who undergo colectomy. JAMA Surg 150:410–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keller DS, Delaney CP, Hashemi L, Haas EM (2016) A national evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes in open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 30:4220–4228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Keller DS, Senagore AJ, Fitch K, Bochner A, Haas EM (2017) A new perspective on the value of minimally invasive colorectal surgery-payer, provider, and patient benefits. Surg Endosc 31:2846–2853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ballesta Lopez C, Cid JA, Poves I, Bettonica C, Villegas L, Memon MA (2003) Laparoscopic surgery in the elderly patient. Surg Endosc 17:333–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bottino V, Esposito MG, Mottola A, Marte G, Di Maio V, Sciascia V et al (2012) Early outcomes of colon laparoscopic resection in the elderly patients compared with the younger. BMC Surg 12(Suppl 1):S8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frasson M, Braga M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, Di Carlo V (2008) Benefits of laparoscopic colorectal resection are more pronounced in elderly patients. Dis Colon Rectum 51:296–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keller DS, Lawrence JK, Nobel T, Delaney CP (2013) Optimizing cost and short-term outcomes for elderly patients in laparoscopic colonic surgery. Surg Endosc 27:4463–4468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    She WH, Poon JT, Fan JK, Lo OS, Law WL (2013) Outcome of laparoscopic colectomy for cancer in elderly patients. Surg Endosc 27:308–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    cms.gov (2016) National Health Expenditures Fact Sheet 2016. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NHE-Fact-Sheet.html via the Internet. Accessed June 2019
  25. 25.
    Mirel LB, Carper K (2014) Trends in health care expenditures for the elderly, Age 65 and Over: 2001, 2006, and 2011 (2014). Statistical Brief #429. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st429/stat429.pdf. Accessed June 2019
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Jafari MD, Jafari F, Halabi WJ, Nguyen VQ, Pigazzi A, Carmichael JC et al (2014) Colorectal cancer resections in the aging US Population: a trend toward decreasing rates and improved outcomes. JAMA Surg 149:557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bardram L, Funch-Jensen P, Kehlet H (2000) Rapid rehabilitation in elderly patients after laparoscopic colonic resection. Br J Surg 87:1540–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pinto RA, Ruiz D, Edden Y, Weiss EG, Nogueras JJ, Wexner SD (2011) How reliable is laparoscopic colorectal surgery compared with laparotomy for octogenarians? Surg Endosc 25:2692–2698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roscio F, Bertoglio C, De Luca A, Frigerio A, Galli F, Scandroglio I (2011) Outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients. JSLS 15:315–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mutch MG (2006) Laparoscopic colectomy in the elderly: when is too old? Clin Colon Rectal Surg 19:33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kiran RP, Attaluri V, Hammel J, Church J (2013) A novel nomogram accurately quantifies the risk of mortality in elderly patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 257:905–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kunitake H, Zingmond DS, Ryoo J, Ko CY (2010) Caring for octogenarian and nonagenarian patients with colorectal cancer: what should our standards and expectations be. Dis Colon Rectum 53:735–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kennedy GD, Heise C, Rajamanickam V, Harms B, Foley EF (2009) Laparoscopy decreases postoperative complication rates after abdominal colectomy: results from the national surgical quality improvement program. Ann Surg 249:596–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Keller DS, Parikh N, Senagore AJ (2017) Predicting opportunities to increase utilization of laparoscopy for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 31:1855–1862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Keller DS, Qiu J, Senagore AJ (2018) Predicting opportunities to increase utilization of laparoscopy for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 32:1556–1563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pascual M, Salvans S, Pera M (2016) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: current status and implementation of the latest technological innovations. World J Gastroenterol 22:704–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fuchs Weizman N, Maurer R, Einarsson JI, Vitonis AF, Cohen SL (2015) Survey on barriers to adoption of laparoscopic surgery. J Surg Educ 72:985–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). SAGES Acquisition Of Data For Outcomes And Procedure Transfer (ADOPT) Program. https://www.sages.org/sages-adopt/. Accessed Feb 2019
  40. 40.
    Foster JD, Francis NK (2015) Objective assessment of technique in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: what are the existing tools. Tech Coloproctol 19:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mackenzie H, Cuming T, Miskovic D, Wyles SM, Langsford L, Anderson J et al (2015) Design, delivery, and validation of a trainer curriculum for the national laparoscopic colorectal training program in England. Ann Surg 261:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    National Training Programme for Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery (LAPCO) (2017) Proportion of colorectal resections undertaken laparoscopically in England. http://lapco.nhs.uk/activity-latest-HES-data.php. Accessed Feb 2019
  43. 43.
    Wrenn SM, Cepeda-Benito A, Ramos-Valadez DI, Cataldo PA (2018) Patient perceptions and quality of life after colon and rectal surgery: what do patients really want. Dis Colon Rectum 61:971–978PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, NewYork-PresbyterianColumbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Minimally Invasive Therapies Group, Medtronic, Inc.BoulderUSA
  3. 3.Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of SurgeryColumbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations