Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 2517–2524 | Cite as

Impact of minimally invasive surgery on short-term outcomes after rectal resection for neoplasm within the setting of an enhanced recovery program

  • Allison N. Martin
  • Puja Shah Berry
  • Charles M. Friel
  • Traci L. Hedrick
Article

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for rectal cancer has increased in recent years. Enhanced recovery (ER) protocols are associated with improved outcomes, such as decreased length of stay (LOS). We examined the impact of MIS and ER protocols on outcomes after rectal resection for neoplasm.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed for patients undergoing elective open (OS) or MIS rectal resection for neoplasm from 2010 to 2015 at a single institution. MIS was defined as any laparoscopic or robotic procedure. An ER protocol was implemented in 8/2013. Regression models were used to estimate outcomes including LOS, 30-day morbidity, readmission, and hospital costs.

Results

Among 325 patients, 252 (77.5%) underwent OS; 73 (22.5%) underwent MIS rectal resection. Prior to ER implementation, only 6.1% underwent MIS, compared to 23.1 and 54.4% in the 2 years following ER implementation (p < 0.001). Prior to ER implementation, median LOS was 7 days (n = 181) with 23.8% 30-day morbidity. Following ER implementation, median LOS was 4 days (n = 144); patients receiving OS had median LOS of 5.5 days (n = 82) and 30-day morbidity of 19.5%. ER patients receiving MIS had median LOS of 3 days (n = 62) and 30-day morbidity of 14.5%. Univariate regression demonstrated that MIS patients on ER protocol were more likely to have a shortened LOS (< 6 days) compared to OS patients on non-ER protocol (both p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The combination of MIS and ER protocol is significantly associated with reduced LOS for patients undergoing rectal resection for neoplasm. Further research is needed to determine which patients are best suited to MIS from an oncologic standpoint.

Keywords

Minimally invasive Enhanced recovery Rectal cancer Surgical outcomes 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Allison Martin: salary supported in part by funding support provided by the Institutional National Research Service Award T32 CA 163177 from the National Cancer Institute to A.N.M., Puja Shah Berry, Charles Friel and Traci Hedrick have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

464_2017_5956_MOESM1_ESM.docx (86 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 86 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Khreiss W, Huebner M, Cima RR, Dozois ER, Chua HK, Pemberton JH et al (2014) Improving conventional recovery with enhanced recovery in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 57(5):557–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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(14):1324–1332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Phelan M, Smith BR, Stamos MJ (2015) Outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic abdominoperineal resections in patients with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 58(12):1123–1129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gomez Ruiz M, Parra IM, Palazuelos CM, Martin JA, Fernandez CC, Diego JC et al (2015) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum 58(1):145–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feroci F, Vannucchi A, Bianchi PP, Cantafio S, Garzi A, Formisano G et al (2016) Total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: Laparoscopic vs robotic surgery. World J Gastroenterol 22(13):3602–3610CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Jesus JP, Valadao M, de Castro Araujo RO, Cesar D, Linhares E, Iglesias AC (2016) The circumferential resection margins status: a comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 42(6):808–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim CN, Bae SU, Lee SG, Yang SH, Hyun IG, Jang JH et al (2016) Clinical and oncologic outcomes of totally robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: initial results in a center for minimally invasive surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 31(4):843–852CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, Boller AM, George V, Abbas M et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13):1346–1355CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13):1356–1363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keane C, Savage S, McFarlane K, Seigne R, Robertson G, Eglinton T (2012) Enhanced recovery after surgery versus conventional care in colonic and rectal surgery. ANZ J Surg 82(10):697–703CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feroci F, Lenzi E, Baraghini M, Garzi A, Vannucchi A, Cantafio S et al (2013) Fast-track colorectal surgery: protocol adherence influences postoperative outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 28(1):103–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rossi G, Vaccarezza H, Vaccaro CA, Mentz RE, Im V, Alvarez A et al (2013) Two-day hospital stay after laparoscopic colorectal surgery under an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway. World J Surg 37(10):2483–2489CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thiele RH, Rea KM, Turrentine FE, Friel CM, Hassinger TE, McMurry TL et al (2015) Standardization of care: impact of an enhanced recovery protocol on length of stay, complications, and direct costs after colorectal surgery. J Am Coll Surg 220(4):430–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baek SJ, Al-Asari S, Jeong DH, Hur H, Min BS, Baik SH et al (2013) Robotic versus laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis with or without intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 27(11):4157–4163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barlehner E, Benhidjeb T, Anders S, Schicke B (2005) Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: outcomes in 194 patients and review of the literature. Surg Endosc 19(6):757–766CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feliciotti F, Guerrieri M, Paganini AM, De Sanctis A, Campagnacci R, Perretta S et al (2003) Long-term results of laparoscopic versus open resections for rectal cancer for 124 unselected patients. Surg Endosc 17(10):1530–1535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gonzalez QH, Rodriguez-Zentner HA, Moreno-Berber JM, Vergara-Fernandez O, Tapia-Cid de Leon H, Jonguitud LA et al (2009) Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision: a nonrandomized comparative prospective trial in a tertiary center in Mexico City. Am Surg 75(1):33–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM et al (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365(9472):1718–1726CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vennix S, Pelzers L, Bouvy N, Beets GL, Pierie JP, Wiggers T et al. (2014) Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014(4):CD005200Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen K, Cao G, Chen B, Wang M, Xu X, Cai W et al (2017) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of classic randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized studies in the last 5 years. Int J Surg 39:1–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ng SS, Lee JF, Yiu RY, Li JC, Hon SS, Mak TW et al (2014) Laparoscopic-assisted versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for mid and low rectal cancer: a prospective, randomized trial. Surg Endosc 28(1):297–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Furst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14(3):210–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hedrick TL, Sawyer RG, Friel CM, Stukenborg GJ (2013) A method for estimating the risk of surgical site infection in patients with abdominal colorectal procedures. Dis Colon Rectum 56(5):627–637CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fish DR, Mancuso CA, Garcia-Aguilar JE, Lee SW, Nash GM, Sonoda T et al (2017) Readmission after ileostomy creation: retrospective review of a common and significant event. Ann Surg 265(2):379–387CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shah PM, Johnston L, Sarosiek B, Harrigan A, Friel CM, Thiele RH et al (2017) Reducing readmissions while shortening length of stay: the positive impact of an enhanced recovery protocol in colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 60(2):219–227CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morgan JA, Thornton BA, Peacock JC, Hollingsworth KW, Smith CR, Oz MC et al (2005) Does robotic technology make minimally invasive cardiac surgery too expensive? A hospital cost analysis of robotic and conventional techniques. J Card Surg 20(3):246–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs–the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363(8):701–704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huang LC, Ma Y, Ngo JV, Rhoads KF (2014) What factors influence minority use of National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers? Cancer 120(3):399–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Section of Colon and Rectal SurgeryUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations