BACKGROUND: In the current study, we aimed to compare peri- and postoperative 30-day outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis in a case-matched design using data procedure-targeted database.
METHODS: Patients who underwent elective total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis in 2012 and 2013 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of surgical approach (laparoscopic and open). Laparoscopic and open groups were matched (1:1) based on age, gender, diagnosis, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Comorbidities, perioperative, and short-term (30-day) postoperative outcomes were compared between the matched groups.
RESULTS: We identified 1442 patients-549 in the laparoscopic group and 893 patients in the open group. After case matching, there were 326 patients in each group. There were 48 (14.7%) patients who had conversion in the laparoscopic group. The open group had a higher proportion of patients with ascites [0 (0%) vs. 7 (2.1%) p = 0.015], preoperative weight loss [26 (8.0%) vs. 45 (13.8%) p = 0.018], and contaminated wound classifications [Clean/Contaminated 261 (80%) vs. 240 (74%), Contaminated 55 (16.9%) vs. 54 (16.6%), and Dirty/Infected 8 (2.5%) vs. 28 (8.6%), (p = 0.003)]. The laparoscopic group had a significantly longer operative time (242 ± 98 vs. 202 ± 116 min, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (9.4 ± 8.5 vs. 13.3 ± 10.7 days, p < 0.001), and lower ileus rate (23.9 vs. 31.0%, p = 0.045) than the open group. After adjusting for covariates, the differences in terms of operative time and hospital stay remained significant [odds ratio (OR): 0.79, confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.85 and OR 1.36, CI 1.21-1.52, p < 0.001, respectively].
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic approach for total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis is associated with a shorter hospital stay but longer operative time compared with an open approach.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, and open colectomy using a procedure-targeted database.
METHODS: Retrospective review of patients undergoing elective colectomy in 2013 was conducted using the procedure-targeted database of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP). Robotic, laparoscopic, and open groups were matched (1:1:1) based on age, gender, body mass index, surgical procedure, diagnosis and ASA classification. Demographics, comorbidities, and short-term (30 day) outcomes were compared.
RESULTS: Out of 12 790 patients, 387 fulfilled criteria per group after matching. Univariate comparison showed operating time was longer (P < 0.001) and hospital stay was shorter (P < 0.001) in the robotic group. Morbidity (P < 0.001), superficial SSI (P < 0.001), bleeding requiring transfusion (P < 0.001), ventilator dependency (P = 0.003), and ileus (P < 0.001) rates were lower in the robotic group. After adjusting for confounders, outcomes were comparable between the groups except hospital stay which was shorter in the robotic group (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: ACS-NSQIP data demonstrated several short-term advantages of robotic surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of concurrent mesh herniorrhaphy on short-term outcomes of colorectal surgery by using a large, nationwide database.
METHODS: Patients who underwent simultaneous ventral hernia repair (VHR) and colorectal surgery between 2005 and 2010 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Patients who underwent VHR with mesh repair were case matched with patients who underwent VHR without mesh based on the type of colorectal procedure, diagnosis, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score.
RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-two patients who underwent VHR with mesh were case matched with 524 patients who underwent VHR without mesh. Mean operating time was significantly longer in patients who underwent VHR with mesh (195.8 ± 98.7 vs 164.3 ± 84.4 minutes, P < .001). Postoperative morbidity (P = .58), mortality (P = .27), superficial surgical site infection (SSI) (P = .14), deep SSI (P = .38), organ space SSI (P = .17), wound disruption (P > .99), reoperation (P = .48), and length of hospital stay (P = .71) were comparable between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data suggest that VHR with mesh does not increase 30-day mortality, medical or surgical morbidity in colorectal surgery setting.