Skip to main content
Log in

Using National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data for risk adjustment to compare Clavien 4 and 5 complications in open and laparoscopic colectomy

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic colectomy has been associated with fewer postoperative complications than open colectomy. However, it is unclear whether this is true for the most severe complications typically requiring treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU). The authors hypothesized that laparoscopic colectomy patients have fewer of the most severe complications even after adjustment for comorbidity risk.

Methods

Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) public use files for 2005–2008, the authors identified all laparoscopic (n = 12,455) and open (n = 33,190) colectomies by current procedural terminology (CPT) code. Using the Clavien classification for postoperative complications, they identified NSQIP data points most consistent with Clavien grade 4 complications requiring ICU care (postoperative septic shock, postoperative dialysis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, prolonged ventilatory requirements, need for reintubation) or grade 5 complication (mortality). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. Odds ratios were calculated to compare laparoscopic and open colectomy regarding the probability of having any Clavien class 4 or 5 complication. Logistic regression was performed to account for the effect of preoperative conditions (American Society of Anesthesiology class, wound class, gender, preoperative functional status, preoperative albumin level, azotemia, thrombocytopenia, emergency case, and age >70 years) on complications.

Results

The univariate odds ratio showed a 2.27- to 5.52-fold greater likelihood that a patient would have a complication requiring ICU admission if open rather than laparoscopic surgery was performed (p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression accounting for preoperative comorbidities that might affect outcome showed persistence of an increase in complications, with an odds ratio range of 1.63 to 2.21.

Conclusion

Evaluation of the NSQIP database demonstrated that laparoscopic colectomy confers an independent protective effect on the frequency of ICU-level (Clavien grade 4) complications and mortality. The protective effect remained evident after correction for preoperative conditions that might have affected outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Falk PM, Beart RW Jr, Wexner SD, Thorson AG, Jagelman DG, Lavery IC, Johanson OB, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr (1992) Laparoscopic colectomy: a critical appraisal. Dis Colon Rectum 36:28–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW Jr, Hellinger M, Flanagan R Jr, Peters W, Nelson H (2007) Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study Group trial. Ann Surg 246:655–662

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Heikkinen T, Msika S, Desvignes G, Schwander O, Schiedeck TH, Shekarriz H, Bloechle CH, Baca I, Weiss O, Morino M, Giraudo G, Bonjer HJ, Schouten WR, Lange JF, Van Der Harst E, Plaiser P, Bertleff MJO, Cuesta MA, Van Der Broek W, Meijerink JWHJ, Jakimowicz JJ, Nieuwenhuijzen G, Maring J, Kivit J, Janssen IMC, Spillenaar-Bilgen EJ, Berends F, Lacy AM, Delgado S, Maraculla Akerlund JE, Smedh K, Montgomery A, Skullman S, Nystrom PO, Kald A, Wanstrom A, Dalen J, Svedberg I, Edlund G, Kressner U, Oberg AN, Lundberg O, Lindmark GE, Campbell KL, Jeekel J, Kazemier G, Hop WCJ, Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Van Buuren A (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a demised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Veldkamp R, Gholghesaei M, Bonjer HJ, Meijer DW, Buunen M, Jeekel J, Anderberg B, Cuesta MA, Cuschielr A, Fingerhut A, Fleshman JW, Guillou PJ, Haglind E, Himpens J, Jacobi CA, Jakimowica JJ, Koeckerling F, Lacy AM, Lezoche E, Monson JR, Morino M, Neugebauer E, Wexner SD, Whelan RL, European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) (2004) Laparoscopic resection of colon cancer: consensus of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES). Surg Endosc 18:1163–1185

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dwivedi A, Chahin F, Agrawal S, Chau WY, Tootla A, Tootla F, Silva YJ (2002) Laparoscopic colectomy vs open colectomy for sigmoid diverticular disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1309–1315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Varela JE, Asolati M, Huerta S, Anthony T (2008) Outcomes of laparoscopic and open colectomy at academic centers. Am J Surg 196:403–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Delaney CP, Kiran RP, Senagore AJ, Brady K, Fazio VW (2003) Case-matched comparison of clinical and financial outcome after laparoscopic or open colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 238:67–72

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Martense S, Dunker MS, Slors JF, Cuesta MA, Pierik EGJM, Gouma DG, Hommes DW, Sprangers MA, Bemelman WA (2006) Laparoscopic-assisted versus open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 243:143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dunker MS, Bemelman WA, Slors JF, Van Hogezand RA, Ringers J, Gouma DJ (2000) Laparoscopic-assisted open colectomy for severe acute colitis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD): a retrospective study in 42 patients. Surg Endosc 14:911–914

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Delaney CP, Chang E, Senagore AJ, Broder M (2008) Clinical outcomes and resource utilization associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy using a large national database. Ann Surg 247:819–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stocchi L, Nelson H, Young-Fadok TM, Larson DR, Ilstrup DM (2000) Safety and advantages of laparoscopic vs open colectomy in the elderly: a match-control study. Dis Colon Rectum 43:326–332

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tuech JJ, Pessaux P, Rouge C, Regenet N, Bergamaschi R, Arnaud JP (2000) Laparoscopic vs open colectomy for sigmoid diverticulitis: a prospective comparative study in the elderly. Surg Endosc 14:1031–1033

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. McNicol L, Story DA, Myles PS, Fink M, Seltno AC, Clavisi O, Poustie SJ (2007) Postoperative complications and mortality in older patients having non-cardiac surgery at three Melbourne teaching hospitals. Med J Aust 186:447–452

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Haller G, Myles PS, Wolfe R, Weeks AM, Stoelwinder J, McNeil J (2005) Validity of unplanned admission to an intensive care unit as a measure of patient safety in surgical patients. Anesthesthesiology 103:1121–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dino D, Dematines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6, 336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Story DA, Leslie K, Myles PS, Poustie SJ, Forbes A, Yap S, Beavis V, Kerridge R (2010) Complications and mortality in older surgical patients in Australia and New Zealand (the REASON study): a multicenter, prospective, observational study. Anesthesiology 65:1022–1030

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Antolovic D, Koch M, Hinz U, Schottler D, Schmidt T, Heger U, Schmidt J, Buckler MW, Weitz J (2008) Ischemic colitis: analysis of risk factors for postoperative mortality. Langenbeck Arch Surg 393:507–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Leung JM, Dzanick S (2001) Relative importance of preoperative health status versus intraoperative factors in predicting postoperative adverse outcomes in geriatric surgical patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 49:1080–1085

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Culver DH, Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Banerjee SN, Edwards JR, Tolson JS, Henderson TS (1991) Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Am J Med 91:152S–157S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Halpin VJ, Soper NJ (2006) Decision to convert to open methods. In: Whelan RL, Fleshman JW Jr, Fowler DL (eds) The SAGES manual: perioperative care in minimally invasive surgery. Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., New York, pp 230–296

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nelson H, Sargent D, Wieand HS (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Ms. Sarah Whitehouse for her assistance with the editing of this report.

Disclosures

Shawn Webb, Ilan Rubinfeld, Vic Velanovich, H. Mathilda Horst, and Craig Reickert have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) and the hospitals participating in the ACS NSQIP are the source of the data used in this report. They have not verified and are not responsible for the statistical validity of the data analysis or the conclusions derived by the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shawn Webb.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Webb, S., Rubinfeld, I., Velanovich, V. et al. Using National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data for risk adjustment to compare Clavien 4 and 5 complications in open and laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 26, 732–737 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1944-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1944-2

Keywords

Navigation