Safe surgery in the elderly: A review of outcomes following robotic proctectomy from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample in a cross-sectional study

• Published in: Annals of medicine and surgery Vol. 44; pp. 39 - 45
• Main Authors: Richards, Carly R., Steele, Scott R., Lustik, Michael B., Gillern, Suzanne M., Lim, Robert B., Brady, Justin T., Althans, Ali R., Schlussel, Andrew T.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.08.2019; Elsevier
• Subjects: Elderly; National in-patient sample(NIS); Original Research; Proctectomy; Robotic; Proctectomy; National in-patient sample(NIS); Elderly; Robotic
• ISSN: 2049-0801; 2049-0801
• DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2019.06.004

As our nation's population ages, operating on older and sicker patients occurs more frequently. Robotic operations have been thought to bridge the gap between a laparoscopic and an open approach, especially in more complex cases like proctectomy. Our 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. All cases were restricted to age 70 years old or greater. We identified 6740 admissions for rectal cancer including: 5879 open, 666 laparoscopic, and 195 robotic procedures. The median age was 77 years old. The incidence of a robotic proctectomy increased by 39%, while the open approach declined by 6% over the time period studied. Median (interquartile range) length of stay was shorter for robotic procedures at 4.3 (3–7) days, compared to laparoscopic 5.8 (4–8) and open at 6.7 (5–10) days (p < 0.01), while median total hospital charges were greater in the robotic group compared to laparoscopic and open cases ($64,743 vs. $55,813 vs. $50,355, respectively, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the risk of total complications between the different approaches following multivariate analysis. Robotic proctectomy was associated with a shorter LOS, and this may act as a surrogate marker for an overall improvement in adverse events. These results demonstrate that a robotic approach is a safe and feasible option, and should not be discounted solely based on age or comorbidities. •Robotic proctectomy in the elderly appears to be safe practice.•Open proctectomy is still by far the most common approach.•The use of robotics for proctectomy is still quite low but growing substantially.