Trends and outcomes in laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer from 2005 to 2016 using the ACS-NSQIP database, a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy regarding the use of laparoscopy for rectal cancer, especially after the ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial determined that laparoscopy failed to meet non-inferiority compared with open surgery. With these new recommendations, the current practices for the treatment of rectal cancer across the country are unknown. METHODS: Using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2005 to 2016, resections for rectal cancer were studied. The proportion of laparoscopic versus open surgeries performed was determined by year, and 16 30-day outcomes were studied in each group. Multiple logistic regression was utilized to determine the association between laparoscopic and open technique as well as odds of outcome over time. RESULTS: A total of 31,795 resections were performed, 12,371 (38.9%) laparoscopically. Laparoscopy increased yearly from 9.8% in 2005 to 52.8% in 2016. All 30-day outcomes tended to favor laparoscopy with the exception of operating room time. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that laparoscopic surgery has been widely adopted for treating patients with rectal cancer, and the trend continues despite the ACOSOG Z6051 recommendations suggesting that laparoscopic resection may not be best technique for resection. Stronger recommendations are needed to change current trends if laparoscopic surgery is not the appropriate treatment method for rectal cancer.

Trends and Outcomes for Minimally Invasive Surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: The relapsing and remitting nature of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) predisposes patients to the development of fibrotic strictures, which must often be managed surgically. Laparoscopy provides the potential for enhanced perioperative care. Previous studies comparing morbidity and trends of open versus laparoscopic resection have been constrained by length of study and sample size. METHODS: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, patients with primary diagnosis of IBD undergoing surgical resection from 2005 to 2015 were identified. Morbidity and mortality rates were then compared between open and laparoscopic resections using multiple logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 10,699 resections were performed on IBD patients; 4816 (45.0%) of which were performed laparoscopically. The use of laparoscopy increased annually from 20.9% in 2005 to 55.4% in 2015. Comparing laparoscopic versus open, all 30-d outcomes tended to favor laparoscopy with the exception of operating room time, which was equal between the two groups. The difference in 30-d outcomes was statistically significant in laparoscopy versus open technique for pneumonia (1.0% versus 2.0%), ventilator use >48 h (0.6% versus 1.9%), acute renal failure (0.1% versus 0.4%), renal insufficiency (0.2% versus 0.6%), superficial surgical site infection (4.6% versus 7.7%), deep incisional surgical site infection (1.1% versus 1.8%), organ space infection (5.4% versus 7.3%), urinary tract infection (1.3% versus 2.2%), death (0.2% versus 0.7%), and length of hospital stay (6.4 versus 9.4 d). CONCLUSIONS: These data not only display trends that indicate that the number of laparoscopic resections for IBD have increased over time but are associated with favorable complication rates, operating time, and length of hospital stay, suggesting that laparoscopy may be a safer option for treatment of fibrotic strictures associated with IBD.

Trends in laparoscopic colorectal surgery over time from 2005-2014 using the NSQIP database.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy, originally pioneered by gynecologists, was first adopted by general surgeons in the late 1980s. Since then, laparoscopy has been adopted in the surgical specialties and colorectal surgery for treatment of benign and malignant disease. Formal laparoscopic training became a required component of surgery residency programs as validated by the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery curriculum; however, some surgeons may be more apprehensive of widespread adoption of minimally invasive techniques. Although an overall increase in the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery is anticipated over a 10-year period, it is unknown if a similar increase will be seen in higher risk or more acutely ill patients. METHODS: Using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from 2005-2014, colorectal procedures were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes and categorized to open or laparoscopic surgery. The proportion of colorectal surgeries performed laparoscopically was calculated for each year. Separate descriptive statistics was performed and categorized by age and body mass index (BMI). American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification and emergency case status variables were added to the project to help assess complexity of cases. RESULTS: During the 10-year study period, the number of colorectal cases increased from 3114 in 2005 to 51,611 in 2014 as more hospitals joined NSQIP. A total of 277,376 colorectal cases were identified; of which, 114,359 (41.2%) were performed laparoscopically. The use of laparoscopy gradually increased each year, from 22.7% in 2005 to 49.8% in 2014. Laparoscopic procedures were most commonly performed in the youngest age group (18-49 years), overweight and obese patients (BMI 25-34.9), and in ASA class 1-2 patients. Over the 10-year period, there was a noted increase in the use of laparoscopy in every age, BMI, and ASA category, except ASA 5. The percent of emergency cases receiving laparoscopic surgery also doubled from 5.5% in 2005 to 11.5% in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 10-year period, there was a gradual increase in the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery. Further, there was a consistent increase of laparoscopic surgery in all age groups, including the elderly, in all BMI classes, including the obese and morbidly obese, and in most ASA classes, including ASA 3-4, as well as in emergency surgeries. These trends suggest that minimally invasive colorectal surgery appears to be widely adopted and performed on more complex or higher risk patients.

The Difficult Colorectal Polyp.

Difficult colorectal polyps represent lesions that pose a challenge to traditional endoscopic snare polypectomy. These polyps have historically been managed by surgical resection. Currently, several less invasive options are available to avoid colectomy. Repeat colonoscopy and snare polypectomy by an expert endoscopist, endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and combined endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery have been developed to remove difficult polyps without the need for formal surgical resection. Patients with rectal polyps have the advantage of additional transanal minimally invasive techniques to enhance their resectability. Today, most colorectal polyps can be managed without the need for formal surgical resection.

Prehospital emergency trauma care and management.

Prehospital care of the trauma patient is continuing to evolve; however, the principles of airway maintenance, hemorrhage control, and appropriate resuscitative maneuvers remain central to the role of the emergency medical care provider. Recent changes in the regulations for research in emergency settings will allow randomized trials to proceed to test new devices, drugs, and resuscitative strategies in the prehospital environment. The creation of prehospital research networks will provide the appropriate infrastructure to greatly facilitate the development of new protocols and the execution of large-scale randomized trials with the potential to change current prehospital practice.