Laparoscopic vs open total colectomy: A case-matched comparative study

N. Pokala, C. P. Delaney, A. J. Senagore, K. M. Brady, V. W. Fazio

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Open total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis (OTC) is a major colorectal procedure which would preclude laparoscopy in many centers because of technical difficulty and the fact that laparoscopic total colectomy (LTC) takes much longer than standard laparoscopic proctosigmoidectomy (LPS). This study compares OTC with LTC and LPS. Methods: In this study, 34 LTC patients (May 1999 to August 2003) were matched for age, diagnosis, operative period, and procedure with patients undergoing OTC. Patients with a previous major laparotomy were excluded from the open group. Groups were compared for gender, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification, operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), complications including readmissions, and costs. The LPS cases were picked randomly from the laparoscopic database (every eighth patient), and the OT and LOS were noted. Results: The LTC and OTC groups were matched for age (mean, 31 vs 34 years; p = 0.2), sex (14 vs 13 females; p = 0.8), ASA (8/23/3/0 vs 8/22/4/0, class 1/2/3/4). The body mass index was higher in the open group (23.8 vs 27.9; p = 0.04). The operating time was significantly longer (187 vs 126 min; p = 0.0001) and the median LOS shorter in the LTC group (3 days [IQR, 2.5-5 days] vs 6 days [IQR 4-8 days]; p = 0.0001). The estimated blood loss was significantly less in the LTC group (168 [50-700] ml) vs 238 [50-800] ml); p = 0.001, but there was no significant difference in the complication (26.5% vs 38.2%; p = 0.4) readmission (11.8% vs 14.7%; p = 1.0), reoperative rates (8.8% vs 11.8%; p = 1.0), or direct costs ($4,578 vs $4,562; p = 0.3). One LTC patient died expired on postoperative day 2 of a cardiac event. Four patients (11.8%) required conversion for obesity (n = 2), adhesions (n = 1), or intraoperative hemorrhage (n = 1). The operating times were 36 min longer in the LTC group than in the LPS group (151 vs 187 min; p = 0.02), but there was no significant difference in the LOS. (3 vs 3 days, p = 0.2). Conclusions: The findings show that LTC provides a significant decrease in the LOS over OTC, with increased operating time, but without any change in other parameters. A laparoscopic approach to subtotal colectomy is recommended for suitable patients when an experienced team is available.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)531-535
Number of pages5
JournalSurgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
Volume19
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Colectomy
Length of Stay
Anesthesiology
Costs and Cost Analysis
Operative Surgical Procedures
Laparoscopy
Laparotomy
Body Mass Index
Research Design
Obesity
Databases
Hemorrhage

Keywords

  • Case-matched
  • Ileorectal anastomosis
  • Laparoscopic
  • Open
  • Total colectomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Laparoscopic vs open total colectomy : A case-matched comparative study. / Pokala, N.; Delaney, C. P.; Senagore, A. J.; Brady, K. M.; Fazio, V. W.

In: Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, Vol. 19, No. 4, 04.2005, p. 531-535.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pokala, N. ; Delaney, C. P. ; Senagore, A. J. ; Brady, K. M. ; Fazio, V. W. / Laparoscopic vs open total colectomy : A case-matched comparative study. In: Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2005 ; Vol. 19, No. 4. pp. 531-535.
@article{151c74e2df01471a9e41ffa3a41ab5f1,
title = "Laparoscopic vs open total colectomy: A case-matched comparative study",
abstract = "Background: Open total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis (OTC) is a major colorectal procedure which would preclude laparoscopy in many centers because of technical difficulty and the fact that laparoscopic total colectomy (LTC) takes much longer than standard laparoscopic proctosigmoidectomy (LPS). This study compares OTC with LTC and LPS. Methods: In this study, 34 LTC patients (May 1999 to August 2003) were matched for age, diagnosis, operative period, and procedure with patients undergoing OTC. Patients with a previous major laparotomy were excluded from the open group. Groups were compared for gender, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification, operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), complications including readmissions, and costs. The LPS cases were picked randomly from the laparoscopic database (every eighth patient), and the OT and LOS were noted. Results: The LTC and OTC groups were matched for age (mean, 31 vs 34 years; p = 0.2), sex (14 vs 13 females; p = 0.8), ASA (8/23/3/0 vs 8/22/4/0, class 1/2/3/4). The body mass index was higher in the open group (23.8 vs 27.9; p = 0.04). The operating time was significantly longer (187 vs 126 min; p = 0.0001) and the median LOS shorter in the LTC group (3 days [IQR, 2.5-5 days] vs 6 days [IQR 4-8 days]; p = 0.0001). The estimated blood loss was significantly less in the LTC group (168 [50-700] ml) vs 238 [50-800] ml); p = 0.001, but there was no significant difference in the complication (26.5{\%} vs 38.2{\%}; p = 0.4) readmission (11.8{\%} vs 14.7{\%}; p = 1.0), reoperative rates (8.8{\%} vs 11.8{\%}; p = 1.0), or direct costs ($4,578 vs $4,562; p = 0.3). One LTC patient died expired on postoperative day 2 of a cardiac event. Four patients (11.8{\%}) required conversion for obesity (n = 2), adhesions (n = 1), or intraoperative hemorrhage (n = 1). The operating times were 36 min longer in the LTC group than in the LPS group (151 vs 187 min; p = 0.02), but there was no significant difference in the LOS. (3 vs 3 days, p = 0.2). Conclusions: The findings show that LTC provides a significant decrease in the LOS over OTC, with increased operating time, but without any change in other parameters. A laparoscopic approach to subtotal colectomy is recommended for suitable patients when an experienced team is available.",
keywords = "Case-matched, Ileorectal anastomosis, Laparoscopic, Open, Total colectomy",
author = "N. Pokala and Delaney, {C. P.} and Senagore, {A. J.} and Brady, {K. M.} and Fazio, {V. W.}",
year = "2005",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1007/s00464-004-8806-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "531--535",
journal = "Surgical Endoscopy",
issn = "0930-2794",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Laparoscopic vs open total colectomy

T2 - A case-matched comparative study

AU - Pokala, N.

AU - Delaney, C. P.

AU - Senagore, A. J.

AU - Brady, K. M.

AU - Fazio, V. W.

PY - 2005/4

Y1 - 2005/4

N2 - Background: Open total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis (OTC) is a major colorectal procedure which would preclude laparoscopy in many centers because of technical difficulty and the fact that laparoscopic total colectomy (LTC) takes much longer than standard laparoscopic proctosigmoidectomy (LPS). This study compares OTC with LTC and LPS. Methods: In this study, 34 LTC patients (May 1999 to August 2003) were matched for age, diagnosis, operative period, and procedure with patients undergoing OTC. Patients with a previous major laparotomy were excluded from the open group. Groups were compared for gender, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification, operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), complications including readmissions, and costs. The LPS cases were picked randomly from the laparoscopic database (every eighth patient), and the OT and LOS were noted. Results: The LTC and OTC groups were matched for age (mean, 31 vs 34 years; p = 0.2), sex (14 vs 13 females; p = 0.8), ASA (8/23/3/0 vs 8/22/4/0, class 1/2/3/4). The body mass index was higher in the open group (23.8 vs 27.9; p = 0.04). The operating time was significantly longer (187 vs 126 min; p = 0.0001) and the median LOS shorter in the LTC group (3 days [IQR, 2.5-5 days] vs 6 days [IQR 4-8 days]; p = 0.0001). The estimated blood loss was significantly less in the LTC group (168 [50-700] ml) vs 238 [50-800] ml); p = 0.001, but there was no significant difference in the complication (26.5% vs 38.2%; p = 0.4) readmission (11.8% vs 14.7%; p = 1.0), reoperative rates (8.8% vs 11.8%; p = 1.0), or direct costs ($4,578 vs $4,562; p = 0.3). One LTC patient died expired on postoperative day 2 of a cardiac event. Four patients (11.8%) required conversion for obesity (n = 2), adhesions (n = 1), or intraoperative hemorrhage (n = 1). The operating times were 36 min longer in the LTC group than in the LPS group (151 vs 187 min; p = 0.02), but there was no significant difference in the LOS. (3 vs 3 days, p = 0.2). Conclusions: The findings show that LTC provides a significant decrease in the LOS over OTC, with increased operating time, but without any change in other parameters. A laparoscopic approach to subtotal colectomy is recommended for suitable patients when an experienced team is available.

AB - Background: Open total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis (OTC) is a major colorectal procedure which would preclude laparoscopy in many centers because of technical difficulty and the fact that laparoscopic total colectomy (LTC) takes much longer than standard laparoscopic proctosigmoidectomy (LPS). This study compares OTC with LTC and LPS. Methods: In this study, 34 LTC patients (May 1999 to August 2003) were matched for age, diagnosis, operative period, and procedure with patients undergoing OTC. Patients with a previous major laparotomy were excluded from the open group. Groups were compared for gender, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification, operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), complications including readmissions, and costs. The LPS cases were picked randomly from the laparoscopic database (every eighth patient), and the OT and LOS were noted. Results: The LTC and OTC groups were matched for age (mean, 31 vs 34 years; p = 0.2), sex (14 vs 13 females; p = 0.8), ASA (8/23/3/0 vs 8/22/4/0, class 1/2/3/4). The body mass index was higher in the open group (23.8 vs 27.9; p = 0.04). The operating time was significantly longer (187 vs 126 min; p = 0.0001) and the median LOS shorter in the LTC group (3 days [IQR, 2.5-5 days] vs 6 days [IQR 4-8 days]; p = 0.0001). The estimated blood loss was significantly less in the LTC group (168 [50-700] ml) vs 238 [50-800] ml); p = 0.001, but there was no significant difference in the complication (26.5% vs 38.2%; p = 0.4) readmission (11.8% vs 14.7%; p = 1.0), reoperative rates (8.8% vs 11.8%; p = 1.0), or direct costs ($4,578 vs $4,562; p = 0.3). One LTC patient died expired on postoperative day 2 of a cardiac event. Four patients (11.8%) required conversion for obesity (n = 2), adhesions (n = 1), or intraoperative hemorrhage (n = 1). The operating times were 36 min longer in the LTC group than in the LPS group (151 vs 187 min; p = 0.02), but there was no significant difference in the LOS. (3 vs 3 days, p = 0.2). Conclusions: The findings show that LTC provides a significant decrease in the LOS over OTC, with increased operating time, but without any change in other parameters. A laparoscopic approach to subtotal colectomy is recommended for suitable patients when an experienced team is available.

KW - Case-matched

KW - Ileorectal anastomosis

KW - Laparoscopic

KW - Open

KW - Total colectomy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=21244471152&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=21244471152&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00464-004-8806-0

DO - 10.1007/s00464-004-8806-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 15759188

AN - SCOPUS:21244471152

VL - 19

SP - 531

EP - 535

JO - Surgical Endoscopy

JF - Surgical Endoscopy

SN - 0930-2794

IS - 4

ER -