Safe Colorectal Surgery in the Elderly
Safe Surgery in the Elderly: A Review of Outcomes Following Robotic Proctectomy From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a Retrospective Cross Sectional Cohort Study. Cross-Sectional Study
1 other identifier
observational
6,740
1 country
1
Brief Summary
The objective was to evaluate the use and outcomes of robotic proctectomy compared to open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer in the elderly. A retrospective cross-sectional cohort study utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS; 2006-2013) was performed.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P75+ for all trials
Started Jan 2013
Longer than P75 for all trials
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
January 1, 2013
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
April 15, 2013
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
April 15, 2017
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
November 28, 2018
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
December 5, 2018
CompletedDecember 5, 2018
December 1, 2018
3 months
November 28, 2018
December 4, 2018
Conditions
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (1)
In-hospital Complications
Complications to include mechanical wound, infections, urinary, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, systemic, surgical, and any complication
through study completion, an average of 5 days
Secondary Outcomes (3)
In-hospital mortality
through study completion, an average of 5 days
Length of Stay
through study completion, an average of 5 days
Costs and Charges
through study completion, an average of 5 days
Study Arms (3)
Open Proctectomy Patients
Patients who underwent Proctectomy through an open approach
Laparoscopic Proctectomy Patients
Patients who underwent Proctectomy through a Laparoscopic approach
Robotic Proctectomy Patients
Patients who underwent Proctectomy through a Robotic approach
Interventions
Resection of the rectum
Eligibility Criteria
Patients were eligible if they were 70 years old or greater, underwent proctectomy in an elective setting, and did not have an abdominoperioneal resection.
You may qualify if:
- years of age or older
- underwent proctectomy
You may not qualify if:
- emergent admissions
- abdominoperineal resections
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
- Tripler Army Medical Centerlead
- Madigan Army Medical Centercollaborator
Study Sites (1)
Tripler Army Medical Center
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96859, United States
Related Publications (34)
Guiding principles for the care of older adults with multimorbidity: an approach for clinicians. Guiding principles for the care of older adults with multimorbidity: an approach for clinicians: American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on the Care of Older Adults with Multimorbidity. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012 Oct;60(10):E1-E25. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04188.x. Epub 2012 Sep 19. No abstract available.
PMID: 22994865RESULTFielding LP, Phillips RK, Hittinger R. Factors influencing mortality after curative resection for large bowel cancer in elderly patients. Lancet. 1989 Mar 18;1(8638):595-7. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(89)91618-8.
PMID: 2564119RESULTTan KY, Kawamura Y, Mizokami K, Sasaki J, Tsujinaka S, Maeda T, Konishi F. Colorectal surgery in octogenarian patients--outcomes and predictors of morbidity. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009 Feb;24(2):185-9. doi: 10.1007/s00384-008-0615-9. Epub 2008 Dec 3.
PMID: 19050901RESULTLaw WL, Chu KW, Tung PH. Laparoscopic colorectal resection: a safe option for elderly patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2002 Dec;195(6):768-73. doi: 10.1016/s1072-7515(02)01483-7.
PMID: 12495308RESULTCheung HY, Chung CC, Fung JT, Wong JC, Yau KK, Li MK. Laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer in octogenarians: results in a decade. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007 Nov;50(11):1905-10. doi: 10.1007/s10350-007-9070-x. Epub 2007 Sep 26.
PMID: 17899275RESULTStocchi L, Nelson H, Young-Fadok TM, Larson DR, Ilstrup DM. Safety and advantages of laparoscopic vs. open colectomy in the elderly: matched-control study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000 Mar;43(3):326-32. doi: 10.1007/BF02258297.
PMID: 10733113RESULTVignali A, Di Palo S, Tamburini A, Radaelli G, Orsenigo E, Staudacher C. Laparoscopic vs. open colectomies in octogenarians: a case-matched control study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005 Nov;48(11):2070-5. doi: 10.1007/s10350-005-0147-0.
PMID: 16086219RESULTChampagne BJ, Delaney CP. Laparoscopic approaches to rectal cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2007 Aug;20(3):237-48. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-984868.
PMID: 20011205RESULTJayne DG, Brown JM, Thorpe H, Walker J, Quirke P, Guillou PJ. Bladder and sexual function following resection for rectal cancer in a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open technique. Br J Surg. 2005 Sep;92(9):1124-32. doi: 10.1002/bjs.4989.
PMID: 15997446RESULTvan der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Furst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC, Bonjer HJ; COlorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection II (COLOR II) Study Group. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013 Mar;14(3):210-8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0. Epub 2013 Feb 6.
PMID: 23395398RESULTPark S, Kim NK. The Role of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Overcoming Technical Challenges in Laparoscopic Surgery by Advanced Techniques. J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Jul;30(7):837-46. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.7.837. Epub 2015 Jun 10.
PMID: 26130943RESULTBaik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS, Hur H, Sohn SK, Cho CH, Kim H. Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Jun;16(6):1480-7. doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0435-3. Epub 2009 Mar 17.
PMID: 19290486RESULTKim JY, Kim NK, Lee KY, Hur H, Min BS, Kim JH. A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Aug;19(8):2485-93. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2262-1. Epub 2012 Mar 21.
PMID: 22434245RESULTD'Annibale A, Pernazza G, Monsellato I, Pende V, Lucandri G, Mazzocchi P, Alfano G. Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013 Jun;27(6):1887-95. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2731-4. Epub 2013 Jan 5.
PMID: 23292566RESULTFrasson M, Braga M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, Di Carlo V. Benefits of laparoscopic colorectal resection are more pronounced in elderly patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008 Mar;51(3):296-300. doi: 10.1007/s10350-007-9124-0. Epub 2008 Jan 15.
PMID: 18197453RESULTJayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N, Tilney H, Gudgeon M, Bianchi PP, Edlin R, Hulme C, Brown J. Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer: The ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017 Oct 24;318(16):1569-1580. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7219.
PMID: 29067426RESULTCharlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.
PMID: 3558716RESULTElixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998 Jan;36(1):8-27. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199801000-00004.
PMID: 9431328RESULTWashington CW, Derdeyn CP, Dacey RG Jr, Dhar R, Zipfel GJ. Analysis of subarachnoid hemorrhage using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample: the NIS-SAH Severity Score and Outcome Measure. J Neurosurg. 2014 Aug;121(2):482-9. doi: 10.3171/2014.4.JNS131100. Epub 2014 Jun 20.
PMID: 24949676RESULTSingh JA, Kwoh CK, Boudreau RM, Lee GC, Ibrahim SA. Hospital volume and surgical outcomes after elective hip/knee arthroplasty: a risk-adjusted analysis of a large regional database. Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Aug;63(8):2531-9. doi: 10.1002/art.30390.
PMID: 21656509RESULTSchlussel AT, Lustik MB, Johnson EK, Maykel JA, Champagne BJ, Damle A, Ross HM, Steele SR. A nationwide assessment comparing nonelective open with minimally invasive complex colorectal procedures. Colorectal Dis. 2016 Mar;18(3):301-11. doi: 10.1111/codi.13113.
PMID: 26362693RESULTDamle A, Damle RN, Flahive JM, Schlussel AT, Davids JS, Sturrock PR, Maykel JA, Alavi K. Diffusion of technology: Trends in robotic-assisted colorectal surgery. Am J Surg. 2017 Nov;214(5):820-824. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.03.020. Epub 2017 Mar 21.
PMID: 28347491RESULTLee MG, Chiu CC, Wang CC, Chang CN, Lee SH, Lee M, Hsu TC, Lee CC. Trends and Outcomes of Surgical Treatment for Colorectal Cancer between 2004 and 2012- an Analysis using National Inpatient Database. Sci Rep. 2017 May 17;7(1):2006. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-02224-y.
PMID: 28515452RESULTHalabi WJ, Kang CY, Jafari MD, Nguyen VQ, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A. Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World J Surg. 2013 Dec;37(12):2782-90. doi: 10.1007/s00268-013-2024-7.
PMID: 23564216RESULTTam MS, Kaoutzanis C, Mullard AJ, Regenbogen SE, Franz MG, Hendren S, Krapohl G, Vandewarker JF, Lampman RM, Cleary RK. A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2016 Feb;30(2):455-463. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4218-6. Epub 2015 Apr 17.
PMID: 25894448RESULTBaek JH, Pastor C, Pigazzi A. Robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc. 2011 Feb;25(2):521-5. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1204-x. Epub 2010 Jul 7.
PMID: 20607559RESULTSchlussel AT, Delaney CP, Maykel JA, Lustik MB, Nishtala M, Steele SR. A National Database Analysis Comparing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in Laparoscopic vs Open Colectomies: Inherent Variance May Impact Outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016 Sep;59(9):843-54. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000642.
PMID: 27505113RESULTAntoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery confers lower mortality in the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 66,483 patients. Surg Endosc. 2015 Feb;29(2):322-33. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3672-x. Epub 2014 Jul 2.
PMID: 24986017RESULTSeishima R, Okabayashi K, Hasegawa H, Tsuruta M, Shigeta K, Matsui S, Yamada T, Kitagawa Y. Is laparoscopic colorectal surgery beneficial for elderly patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015 Apr;19(4):756-65. doi: 10.1007/s11605-015-2748-9. Epub 2015 Jan 24.
PMID: 25617077RESULTPark JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer: case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Dec;17(12):3195-202. doi: 10.1245/s10434-010-1162-5. Epub 2010 Jun 30.
PMID: 20589436RESULTKeller DS, Senagore AJ, Lawrence JK, Champagne BJ, Delaney CP. Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc. 2014 Jan;28(1):212-21. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3163-5. Epub 2013 Aug 31.
PMID: 23996335RESULTLi Y, Wang S, Gao S, Yang C, Yang W, Guo S. Laparoscopic colorectal resection versus open colorectal resection in octogenarians: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and efficacy. Tech Coloproctol. 2016 Mar;20(3):153-62. doi: 10.1007/s10151-015-1419-x. Epub 2016 Jan 18.
PMID: 26783029RESULTPark JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH. S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2011 Jan;25(1):240-8. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1166-z. Epub 2010 Jun 15.
PMID: 20552367RESULTAgha RA, Borrelli MR, Vella-Baldacchino M, Thavayogan R, Orgill DP; STROCSS Group. The STROCSS statement: Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery. Int J Surg. 2017 Oct;46:198-202. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.08.586. Epub 2017 Sep 7.
PMID: 28890409RESULT
Related Links
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Interventions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Study Design
- Study Type
- observational
- Observational Model
- CASE ONLY
- Time Perspective
- CROSS SECTIONAL
- Target Duration
- 1 Year
- Sponsor Type
- FED
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- General Surgery Chief Resident Surgeon
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
November 28, 2018
First Posted
December 5, 2018
Study Start
January 1, 2013
Primary Completion
April 15, 2013
Study Completion
April 15, 2017
Last Updated
December 5, 2018
Record last verified: 2018-12