Laparoscopic versus robotic colectomy: a national surgical quality improvement project analysis

Robotic colorectal surgery is being increasingly adopted. Our objective was to compare early postoperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic colectomy in a nationally representative sample. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Colectomy Targeted Dataset from 2012 to 2014 was used for this study. Adult patients undergoing elective colectomy with an anastomosis were included. Patients were stratified based on location of colorectal resection (low anterior resection (LAR), left-sided resection, or right-sided resection). Bivariate data analysis was performed, and logistic regression modeling was conducted to calculate risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes. There were a total of 25,998 laparoscopic colectomies (30 % LAR's, 45 % left-sided, and 25 % right-sided) and 1484 robotic colectomies (54 % LAR's, 28 % left-sided, and 18 % right-sided). The risk-adjusted overall morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality were similar between laparoscopic and robotic approaches in all anastomotic groups. Patients undergoing robotic LAR had a lower conversion rate (OR 0.47, 95 % CI 1.20-1.76) and postoperative sepsis rate (OR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.29-0.85) but a higher rate of diverting ostomies (OR 1.45, 95 % CI 1.20-1.76). Robotic right-sided colectomies had significantly lower conversion rates (OR 0.58, 95 % CI 0.34-0.96). Robotic colectomy in all groups was associated with a longer operative time (by 40 min) and a decreased length of stay (by 0.5 days). In a nationally representative sample comparing laparoscopic and robotic colectomies, the overall morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality between groups are similar while length of stay was shorter by 0.5 days in the robotic colectomy group. Robotic LAR was associated with lower conversion rates and lower septic complications. However, robotic LAR is also associated with a significantly higher rate of diverting ostomy. The reason for this relationship is unclear. Surgeon factors, patient factors, and technical factors should be considered in future studies.