No abstract

Robotic colorectal surgery has been shown to have lower rates of unplanned conversion to open surgery when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Risk factors associated with conversion from robotic to open colectomy and comparisons of the risk factors between robotic and laparoscopic approaches have not been previously reported. Patients who underwent elective laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries between July 1, 2012 and April 28, 2015, were identified in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative registry. Candidate covariates were identified, and hierarchical logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors for conversion. There were 4796 cases that met study inclusion criteria. Conversion was required in 18.2 % of laparoscopic and 7.7 % of robotic cases (p < 0.0001). Risk factors for conversion in the laparoscopic group included the following: moderate/severe adhesions, obesity, colorectal cancer, hypertension, rectal operations, urgent priority, and tobacco use. Risk factors for conversion in the robotic group included the following: severe adhesions, bleeding disorder, presence of cancer, cirrhosis, and use of statins. Higher surgeon volume was protective in both groups. Conversion rates are lower for robotic than for laparoscopic colorectal surgery with fewer predictors of conversion. Recognition of factors predicting conversion may allow surgeons to choose an operative approach that optimizes the benefits of the available technologies.

No abstract

Diverting loop ileostomy takedown has a complication rate of approximately 20%. Higher ASA class, longer operative times, history of bleeding disorder, and functional status were identified as risk factors for most complications.

Objective To assess the variation in hospitals’ approaches to intraoperative fluid management and their association with postoperative recovery. Background Despite increasing interest in goal-directed, restricted-volume fluid administration for major surgery, there remains little consensus on optimal strategies, due to the lack of institution-level studies of resuscitation practices. Methods Among 64 hospitals in a state-wide surgical collaborative, we profiled fluid administration practices during 8404 intestinal resections, 22,854 hysterectomies, and 1471 abdominopelvic endovascular procedures. We computed intraoperative fluid balance, accounting for patient morphometry, crystalloid, colloid, blood products, urine, blood loss, duration, and approach. We stratified hospitals by average fluid balance quartile, and compared patterns across disciplines and associations with risk-adjusted postoperative length of stay (pLOS). Results There was wide variation in fluid balance between hospitals (P < 0.001, all procedures), but significant within-hospital correlation across operations (Pearson rho: intestinal-hysterectomy = 0.50, intestinal-endovascular = 0.36, hysterectomy-endovascular = 0.54, all P < 0.05). Highest fluid balance hospitals had significantly longer adjusted pLOS than lowest balance hospitals for intestinal resection (6.5 vs 5.7 d, P < 0.001) and hysterectomy (1.9 vs 1.7 d, P < 0.001), but not endovascular (2.1 vs 2.3 d, P = 0.69). Risk-adjusted complication rates were not associated with fluid balance rankings. Conclusions Hospitals’ approaches to intraoperative fluid administration vary widely, and their practice patterns are pervasive across disparate procedures. High fluid balance hospitals have 12% to 14% longer risk-adjusted pLOS for visceral abdominal surgery, independent of patient complexity and complications. These findings are consistent with evidence that isovolemic resuscitation in enhanced recovery protocols accelerates recovery of bowel function.