» Articles » PMID: 35141775

Impact of Type of Minimally Invasive Approach on Open Conversions Across Ten Common Procedures in Different Specialties

Overview
Journal Surg Endosc
Publisher Springer
Date 2022 Feb 10
PMID 35141775
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Conversion rates during minimally invasive surgery are generally examined in the limited scope of a particular procedure. However, for a hospital or payor, the cumulative impact of conversions during commonly performed procedures could have a much larger negative effect than what is appreciated by individual surgeons. The aim of this study is to assess open conversion rates during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) across common procedures using laparoscopic/thoracoscopic (LAP/VATS) and robotic-assisted (RAS) approaches.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study using the Premier Database on patients who underwent common operations (hysterectomy, lobectomy, right colectomy, benign sigmoidectomy, low anterior resection, inguinal and ventral hernia repair, and partial nephrectomy) between January 2013 and September 2015. ICD-9 and CPT codes were used to define procedures, modality, and conversion. Propensity scores were calculated using patient, hospital, and surgeon characteristics. Propensity-score matched analysis was used to compare conversions between LAP/VATS and RAS for each procedure.

Results: A total of 278,520 patients had MIS approaches of the ten operations. Conversion occurred in 5% of patients and was associated with a 1.77 day incremental increase in length of stay and $3441 incremental increase in cost. RAS was associated with a 58.5% lower rate of conversion to open surgery compared to LAP/VATS.

Conclusion: At a health system or payer level, conversion to open is detrimental not just for the patient and surgeon but also puts a significant strain on hospital resources. Use of RAS was associated with less than half of the conversion rate observed for LAP/VATS.

Citing Articles

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: The Largest Systematic Reviews of 68,755 Patients and Meta-analysis.

Du R, Wan Y, Shang Y, Lu G Ann Surg Oncol. 2024; 32(1):351-373.

PMID: 39419891 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-16371-w.


Step-by-step roadmap to building a robotic acute care surgery program (RACSP) in a level I trauma center: outcomes and lessons learned after 1-year implementation.

Jose A, Rafieezadeh A, Zangbar B, Klein J, Kirsch J, Shnaydman I Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2024; 9(1):e001449.

PMID: 39077748 PMC: 11284907. DOI: 10.1136/tsaco-2024-001449.


A retrospective study of laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, and open emergent/urgent cholecystectomy based on the PINC AI Healthcare Database 2017-2020.

Campbell S, Lee S, Liu Y, Wren S World J Emerg Surg. 2023; 18(1):55.

PMID: 38037087 PMC: 10687827. DOI: 10.1186/s13017-023-00521-8.


Robotic surgery for inguinal and ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

DeAngelis N, Schena C, Moszkowicz D, Kuperas C, Fara R, Gaujoux S Surg Endosc. 2023; 38(1):24-46.

PMID: 37985490 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10545-5.


Robotic versus Open Surgery in Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Evaluation of Surgical and Oncological Outcomes.

Zirafa C, Romano G, Sicolo E, Bagala E, Manfredini B, Ali G Curr Oncol. 2023; 30(10):9104-9115.

PMID: 37887558 PMC: 10605396. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30100658.


References
1.
Liu G, Ma Y, Wang S, Han X, Gao D . Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Carcinoma: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Transl Oncol. 2017; 10(4):501-510. PMC: 5447386. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2017.03.004. View

2.
Arezzo A, Passera R, Scozzari G, Verra M, Morino M . Laparoscopy for rectal cancer reduces short-term mortality and morbidity: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2012; 27(5):1485-502. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2649-x. View

3.
Ind T, Laios A, Hacking M, Nobbenhuis M . A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot. 2017; 13(4). PMC: 5724687. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1851. View

4.
Maenpaa M, Nieminen K, Tomas E, Laurila M, Luukkaala T, Maenpaa J . Robotic-assisted vs traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215(5):588.e1-588.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005. View

5.
Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Micheletto G, Lombardo F, Bonitta G, Morlacchi A . Primary inguinal hernia: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, totally extraperitoneal, and robotic preperitoneal repair. Hernia. 2019; 23(3):473-484. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-019-01964-2. View