4.5 Article

A Nationwide Analysis of Laparoscopy in High-Risk Colorectal Surgery Patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 382-391

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-012-2096-y

Keywords

Laparoscopic; Colorectal surgery; High risk; Nationwide inpatient sample; Colon cancer; Rectal cancer; Colorectal polyps; Diverticular disease; Diverticulitis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Due to safety concerns, the use of laparoscopy in high-risk colorectal surgery patients has been limited. Small reports have demonstrated the benefit of laparoscopy in this population; however, large comparative studies are lacking. A retrospective review of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009 was conducted. Patients undergoing elective colorectal resections for benign and malignant pathology were included in the high-risk group if they had at least two of the following criteria: age > 70, obesity, smoking, anemia, congestive heart failure, valvular disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic pulmonary, kidney and liver disease. Using multivariate logistic regression, the outcomes of laparoscopic surgery were compared to open and converted surgery. Of 145,600 colorectal surgery cases, 32.79% were high-risk. High-risk patients had higher mortality, hospital charges, and longer hospital stay compared to low-risk patients. The use of laparoscopy was lower in the high-risk group with higher conversion rates. In high-risk patients, compared to open surgery, laparoscopy was associated with lower mortality (OR = 0.60), shorter hospital stay, lower charges, decreased respiratory failure (OR = 0.53), urinary tract infection (OR = 0.64), anastomotic leak (OR = 0.69) and wound complications (OR = 0.46). Conversion to open surgery was not associated with higher mortality. Laparoscopy in high-risk colorectal patients is safe and may demonstrate advantages compared to open surgery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available