Document Detail

Population-based study of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery 2006-2008.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23288592     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend that, where clinically appropriate, laparoscopic tumour resections should be available for patients with colorectal cancer. This study aimed to examine the introduction of laparoscopic surgery in the English National Health Service.
METHODS: Data were extracted from the National Cancer Data Repository on all patients who underwent major resection for a primary colorectal cancer diagnosed between 2006 and 2008. Laparoscopic procedures were identified from codes in the Hospital Episode Statistics and National Bowel Cancer Audit Project data in the resource. Trends in the use of laparoscopic surgery and its influence on outcomes were examined.
RESULTS: Of 58 135 resections undertaken over the study period, 10 955 (18·8 per cent) were attempted laparoscopically. This increased from 10·0 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 8·1 to 12·0) per cent in 2006 to 28·4 (25·4 to 31·4) per cent in 2008. Laparoscopic surgery was used less in patients with advanced disease (modified Dukes' stage 'D' versus A: odds ratio (OR) 0·45, 95 per cent c.i. 0·40 to 0·50), rectal tumours (OR 0·71, 0·67 to 0·75), those with more co-morbidity (Charlson score 3 or more versus 0: OR 0·69, 0·58 to 0·82) or presenting as an emergency (OR 0·15, 0·13 to 0·17). A total of 1652 laparoscopic procedures (15·1 per cent) were converted to open surgery. Conversion was more likely in advanced disease (modified Dukes' stage 'D' versus A: OR 1·56, 1·20 to 2·03), rectal tumours (OR 1·29, 1·14 to 1·46) and emergencies (OR 2·06, 1·54 to 2·76). Length of hospital stay (OR 0·65, 0·64 to 0·66), 30-day postoperative mortality (OR 0·55, 0·48 to 0·64) and risk of death within 1 year (hazard ratio 0·60, 0·55 to 0·65) were reduced in the laparoscopic group.
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery was used more frequently in low-risk patients.
Authors:
E F Taylor; J D Thomas; L E Whitehouse; P Quirke; D Jayne; P J Finan; D Forman; J R Wilkinson; E J A Morris
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't     Date:  2013-01-03
Journal Detail:
Title:  The British journal of surgery     Volume:  100     ISSN:  1365-2168     ISO Abbreviation:  Br J Surg     Publication Date:  2013 Mar 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2013-02-04     Completed Date:  2013-04-04     Revised Date:  2013-07-11    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0372553     Medline TA:  Br J Surg     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  553-60     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Copyright Information:
Copyright © 2013 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Affiliation:
Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service, St James's Institute of Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Colorectal Neoplasms / surgery*
Conversion to Open Surgery / statistics & numerical data
Female
Humans
Laparoscopy / statistics & numerical data*
Length of Stay
Male
Middle Aged
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Grant Support
ID/Acronym/Agency:
//Cancer Research UK
Comments/Corrections

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Br J Surg
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Br J Surg
Journal ID (publisher-id): bjs
ISSN: 0007-1323
ISSN: 1365-2168
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK
Article Information
Copyright © 2013 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
open-access:
Accepted Day: 26 Month: 10 Year: 2012
Print publication date: Month: 3 Year: 2013
Electronic publication date: Day: 03 Month: 1 Year: 2013
Volume: 100 Issue: 4
First Page: 553 Last Page: 560
PubMed Id: 23288592
ID: 3592989
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9023

Population-based study of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery 2006–2008
E F Taylor1
J D Thomas16
L E Whitehouse2
P Quirke3
D Jayne45
P J Finan56
D Forman7
J R Wilkinson1
E J A Morris12
1Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service, St James's Institute of Oncology, St James's University HospitalLeeds, UK
2Cancer Epidemiology Group, Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds, St James's Institute of Oncology, St James's University HospitalLeeds, UK
3Pathology and Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, St James's University HospitalLeeds, UK
4Translational Anaesthetic and Surgical Science, Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, St James's University HospitalLeeds, UK
5John Goligher Colorectal Unit, St James's University HospitalLeeds, UK
6National Colorectal Cancer Intelligence NetworkLondon, UK
7Cancer Information Section, International Agency for Research on CancerLyon, France
Correspondence: Correspondence to: Dr E. J. A. Morris, Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service, Level 6, Bexley Wing, St James's Institute of Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK (e-mail: eva.morris@nycris.leedsth.nhs.uk)

Introduction

Historically, the majority of colorectal cancer resections were open operations. There is growing enthusiasm for laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery, with short-term advantages and no negative oncological consequences. Laparoscopic surgery can be challenging technically and associated with a long learning curve13. Although randomized trials provide evidence, their results may not always be directly transferable to the general population1,4. Monitoring the introduction and outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery ensures that patients receive quality care in a cost-effective manner. This study assessed the early introduction and outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in the English health system.


Methods

The National Cancer Data Repository (NCDR) contains information about every patient diagnosed with cancer in England and allows their treatment pathway to be mapped from diagnosis to cure or death. It consists of linked cancer registry, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and National Bowel Cancer Audit Project (NBOCAP) data.

Information was extracted from the NCDR on all individuals who underwent a major resection for primary colorectal cancer (International Classification of Diseases 10th revision C18–C20) diagnosed between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2008. Information on age, sex, tumour site, date of diagnosis, Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) income category (based on postcode at diagnosis) and modified Dukes' stage at diagnosis were extracted from the registry data component of the NCDR. Modified Dukes' stage was used as, over the time period of this study, this was the only staging information captured both by English cancer registries and by the NBOCAP. Information about patient management, including operation type, approach to surgery and hospital of treatment, was derived from HES. If data on modified Dukes' stage at diagnosis or approach to surgery were missing from the HES and cancer registry data in the NCDR, this information was taken from the NBOCAP data set. Standard methods were used to identify whether each patient underwent a major resection for colorectal cancer up to 1 month before or 12 months after the date of diagnosis5,6.

Patients undergoing laparoscopic operations were identified as those with Classification of Interventions and Procedures version 4 (OPCS-4) codes indicating minimal access to abdominal cavity (Y75) or other specified approach to abdominal cavity (Y508) recorded on the same date as the major resection. Converted laparoscopic operations were identified as those with an OPCS-4 code indicating failed minimal access approach converted to open (Y714). Information on approach to surgery was also incorporated from the NBOCAP data set.

A Charlson co-morbidity score7 was calculated for each individual based on diagnostic codes (excluding cancer) recorded for any hospital admission in the year before diagnosis of the colorectal tumour, excluding any admission spanning the date of diagnosis. The cancer component of the Charlson index was derived from the cancer registry information in the NCDR. Patients were grouped into Charlson score categories of 0, 1, 2 and at least 3, higher scores indicating greater co-morbidity.

The urgency of surgery is known to have a strong prognostic impact on outcomes, but this information is not recorded routinely in HES. The method of admission is, however, available. Patients who were admitted as an emergency and underwent surgery within 2 days of admission were deemed to have undergone emergency surgery.

Statistical analysis

The proportion of procedures performed via open, laparoscopic or converted surgery were examined in relation to patient age, sex, year of diagnosis, modified Dukes' stage of disease at diagnosis, tumour location, IMD category, operation type and Charlson co-morbidity score. Factors associated with the use of laparoscopic surgery were also investigated using a hierarchical random-effects binary logistic regression model, fitted using Stata® Statistical Software Release 11 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas, USA). The model was built with a hierarchy of patients clustered within hospitals (level 2), so allowing for correlations between patient outcomes. Co-variables (explanatory variables) in the risk-adjusted model included age (per 10-year increase), sex, tumour site, IMD income category, year of diagnosis, stage at diagnosis, Charlson co-morbidity score, operation type (elective or emergency) and operative approach. Approach to surgery was categorized as open or laparoscopic; converted operations were included in the laparoscopic group on an intention-to-treat basis. Some case-mix information (such as stage of disease and socioeconomic deprivation category) was missing from the NCDR as it was not recorded routinely in the database.

Analyses restricted to patients with complete data would not have allowed the overall outcome to be assessed. Missing data were, therefore, imputed deterministically using the ICE command8, with passive and substitute options and ordered logistic regression for ten imputations and ten cycles of regression switching. It was assumed that the data were ‘missing at random’. The imputation model consisted of 30-day postoperative mortality, survival time, length of hospital stay, age at diagnosis, sex, median annual workload of the hospital, modified Dukes' stage, IMD income category, operation type (elective or emergency), admission type (elective or emergency), year of diagnosis, year of operation, method of access (open, laparoscopic completed, laparoscopic converted), Charlson co-morbidity score, tumour site, hospital and cancer registry. For comparative purposes the models were built using both the imputed data set and a data set restricted to cases with complete data.

To investigate the relationship between laparoscopic treatment and the outcomes postoperative mortality, long-term survival and postoperative length of hospital stay, logistic, Cox and linear regression hierarchical random-effects models were fitted. Thirty-day postoperative mortality was defined as death within 30 days of major resection. Survival time was calculated from the date of major resection to the date of death or when censored (30 June 2010). Length of stay was defined as the number of days from major resection to the end of the associated hospital stay (calculated taking into account transfers between different hospitals). Length of stay was log-transformed before analysis with estimates back-transformed and interpreted as length of stay ratios. Length of stay values of less than 1·00 indicate a shorter stay, values greater than 1·00 indicate a longer stay, and values of 1·00 indicate no change in the duration of hospital stay due to the variable of interest.


Results

Between 2006 and 2008, 58 135 major colorectal cancer resections were performed, of which 10 955 (18·8 per cent) were attempted laparoscopically. In total, 9303 (84·9 per cent) of these were completed laparoscopically and 1652 (15·1 per cent) were converted to open procedures. Use of the laparoscopic approach increased from 10·0 (95 per cent c.i. 8·1 to 12·0) to 28·4 (25·4 to 31·4) per cent over the study period. The proportion of patients in whom laparoscopy was attempted ranged from 0 to 65·6 per cent of the major resections in each hospital. Similarly, conversion rates varied from 0 to 46·2 per cent of all operations attempted laparoscopically. Patient characteristics are summarized in Table1, and Table2 shows the results of multivariable analyses investigating the use of laparoscopic surgery.

Not all procedures that were attempted laparoscopically could be completed by this route and Table3 describes the features of patients whose procedure was converted to an open operation. The conversion rate varied in relation to various patient factors; the multivariable analyses investigating the odds of a laparoscopically attempted operation being converted are shown in Table4. Year of diagnosis and patient age had no impact on the odds of conversion of an attempted laparoscopic procedure. The odds of conversion was reduced in women, but increased with advanced tumour stage, socioeconomic deprivation, and with rectal rather than colonic tumours.

Analyses investigating how the approach to surgery influenced outcomes are shown in Table5. Length of stay and 30-day postoperative mortality were lower in patients in whom laparoscopic surgery was attempted. The effects were greatest among those in whom the operation was completed laparoscopically. Individuals in whom laparoscopic surgery was completed had a 40 per cent reduced risk of death within 1 year compared with those who had open surgery.


Discussion

This retrospective population-based study has provided a national perspective on the adoption of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery and its outcomes in England. Laparoscopic surgery was attempted more frequently in patients with a better prognosis (such as elective presentation of early-stage tumours). The odds of conversion were greater in individuals with more advanced disease and those who posed a greater operative risk. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a shorter hospital stay, a lower 30-day postoperative mortality rate and improved long-term survival.

The increased trend for laparoscopic surgery has been demonstrated in other studies9,10, but they examined only operations recorded as being completed laparoscopically and the coding of such procedures is often inaccurate in routine data sets4. In the present study the total number of operations attempted laparoscopically was calculated by including all procedures coded as laparoscopically converted. This approach has confirmed a rapid increase in the adoption of the techniques and provided a more complete picture.

Differences existed between the populations selected for each surgical approach, with laparoscopically treated patients tending to have elective admissions for early-stage disease. Local guidance states that minimal access surgery is not appropriate for all patients but should be available as an option under favourable conditions, for example in individuals with a body mass index (BMI) below 30 kg/m2, no history of major abdominal surgery, tumours category T3 or less, rectal cancers not requiring a total mesorectal excision (TME) and in the absence of clinical or radiological signs of obstruction11. This study has provided indirect evidence indicating that these recommendations are being implemented. These recommendations are not absolute, however, and the authors appreciate that many experienced surgeons and units routinely offer laparoscopic surgery to more complex cases (for example patients with a BMI exceeding 30 kg/m2 or who require TME). Unfortunately, data items that would allow identification of the more challenging laparoscopic cases (such as those with an increased BMI or advanced tumour category) are not yet available in the NCDR. Their inclusion would further increase the utility of the resource.

In the present study one in six laparoscopic procedures was converted and this proportion changed little over the course of the study. Laparoscopic experts would view this rate as too high as many units now report conversion rates below 5 per cent. This emphasizes the need for continued efforts in education and training to reduce the rate further1. The clinical factors that may make a conversion more likely have been documented previously1214. The present analysis has confirmed that advanced stage of disease and co-morbidity1216 consistently increase the likelihood of a conversion.

Randomized trials have demonstrated oncological equivalence of open and laparoscopic techniques, whereas case series have reported better outcomes in laparoscopically treated patients1719 to the extent that one group recommended that laparoscopy should be considered routine20. However, patients who require conversion to open operation may have had poorer postoperative outcomes in some series15,21,22. The present study found that 30-day postoperative mortality, length of hospital stay and 1-year survival was better in laparoscopically treated patients (irrespective of whether a procedure was converted or not).

Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery appeared to have a better prognosis than those receiving open surgery, although it is impossible to separate the effect of earlier disease in the laparoscopic group from any advantages arising directly from the approach. Nevertheless, appropriate selection for any surgical technique remains of paramount importance. It is apparent that some who undergo open surgery would simply not be suitable for a laparoscopic approach and it is to be expected that they have a worse prognosis. This study has highlighted some of the advantages arising from the implementation of a national programme of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. It does not conclude that laparoscopic surgery is superior to open surgery for all individuals, for which more detailed clinical information would be required.


This paper is a contribution from the National Cancer Intelligence Network (http://www.ncin.org.uk). It is based on information collected and quality assured by the regional cancer registries in England, specifically the Eastern Cancer Registration and Information Centre (Jem Rashbass), the Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service (John Wilkinson and Brian Ferguson), the North West Cancer Intelligence Service (Tony Moran), the Oxford Cancer Intelligence Unit (Monica Roche), the South West Cancer Intelligence Service (Julia Verne), the Thames Cancer Registry (Elizabeth Davies), the Trent Cancer Registry (David Meechan) and the West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit (Gill Lawrence).

While undertaking this work E.J.A.M was supported by the Cancer Research UK Bobby Moore Fund and P.Q. by Yorkshire Cancer Research.

Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest.


References
1. Coleman MG,Hanna GB,Kennedy R. on behalf of the National Training Programme (LAPCO)The National Training Programme for Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery in England: a new training paradigmColorectal DisYear: 20111361461621564472
2. Shah PR,Joseph A,Harvey PN. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: learning curve and training implicationsPostgrad Med JYear: 20058153754016085749
3. Tekkis PP,Senagore AJ,Delaney CP,Fazio VW. Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Comparison of right-sided and left-sided resectionsAnn SurgYear: 2005242839115973105
4. Morris EJA,Jordan C,Thomas JD,Cooper M,Brown JM,Thorpe H,et al. CLASICC trialistsComparison of treatment and outcome information between a clinical trial and the National Cancer Data RepositoryBr J SurgYear: 20119829930720981742
5. National Cancer Intelligence NetworkMajor Surgical Resections England, 2004–2006Year: 2011LondonNational Cancer Intelligence Network
6. Morris EJ,Taylor EF,Thomas J,Quirke P,Finan PJ,Coleman MP,et al. Thirty-day postoperative mortality after colorectal cancer surgery in EnglandGutYear: 20116080681321486939
7. Charlson ME,Pompei P,Ales KL,MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longtitudinal studies: development and validationJ Chronic DisYear: 1987403733833558716
8. Royston P. Multiple imputation of missing values: update of ICEStata JournalYear: 20055527536
9. Green CJ,Maxwell R,Verne J,Martin RM,Blazeby JM. The influence of NICE guidance on the uptake of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancerJ Public HealthYear: 200931541545
10. Faiz O,Warusavitarne J,Bottle A,Tekkis PP,Darzi AW,Kennedy RH. Laparoscopically assisted vs open elective colonic and rectal resection: a comparison of outcomes in English National Health Service Trusts between 1996 and 2006Dis Colon RectumYear: 2009521695170419966600
11. National Cancer Peer Review Programme, National Cancer Action TeamManual for Cancer Services: Colorectal Measures, Version 3Year: 2011LondonDepartment of Health
12. Cima RR,Hassan I,Poola VP,Larson DW,Dozois EJ,Larson DR,et al. Failure of institutionally derived predictive models of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery to predict conversion outcomes in an independent data set of 998 laparoscopic colorectal proceduresAnn SurgYear: 201025165265820195150
13. Schlachta CM,Mamazza J,Seshadri PA,Cadeddu MO,Poulin EC. Predicting conversion to open surgery in laparoscopic colorectal resections. A simple clinical modelSurg EndoscYear: 2000141114111711148778
14. Tekkis PP,Senagore AJ,Delaney CP. Conversion rates in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a predictive model with 1253 patientsSurg EndoscYear: 200519475415549630
15. Yamamoto S,Fukunaga M,Miyajima N,Okuda J,Konishi F,Watanabe M,Japan Society of Laparoscopic Colorectal SurgeryImpact of conversion on surgical outcome after laparoscopic operation for rectal carcinoma: a retrospective study of 1073 patientsJ Am Coll SurgYear: 200920838338919318000
16. Thorpe H,Jayne DG,Guillou PJ,Quirke P,Copeland J,Brown JM,Medical Research Council Conventional versusLaparoscopic-Assisted Surgery In Colorectal Cancer Trial GroupPatient factors influencing conversion from laparoscopic assisted to open surgery for colorectal cancerBr J SurgYear: 20089519920517696215
17. Bilimoria KY,Bentrem DHJ,Nelson H,Stryker SJ,Stewart AK,Soper NJ,et al. Use and outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for cancer in the United StatesArch SurgYear: 200814383283918794419
18. Law WL,Poon JT,Fan JK,Lo SH. Comparison of outcome of open and laparoscopic resection for stage II and stage III rectal cancerAnn Surg OncolYear: 2009161488149319290491
19. Law WL,Poon JT,Fan JK,Lo SH. Survival following laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal cancerInt J Colorectal DisYear: 2012271077108522318646
20. Kennedy GD,Heise C,Rajamanickam V,Harms B,Foley EF. Laparoscopy decreases postoperative complication rates after abdominal colectomy: results from the National Surgical Quality Improvement ProgramAnn SurgYear: 200924959660119300230
21. Chan AC,Poon JT,Fan JK,Lo SH,Law WL. Impact of conversion on the long-term outcome in laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancerSurg EndoscYear: 2008222625263018297346
22. Moloo H,Mamazza J,Poulin EC,Burpee SE,Bendavid Y,Klein L,et al. Laparoscopic resections for colorectal cancer: does conversion affect survival?Surg EndoscYear: 20041873273515216851

Tables
[TableWrap ID: tbl1] Table 1 

Characteristics of the study population


Open Laparoscopic attempted


Total n* Multilevel imputed† n* Multilevel imputed†
Age at diagnosis (years)
 < 60 10 305 8426 (81·8) 81·6 (79·1, 84·0) 1879 (18·2) 18·4 (16·0, 20·9)
 60–69 16 076 12 859 (80·0) 79·4 (76·9, 81·9) 3217 (20·0) 20·6 (18·1, 23·1)
 70–79 19 709 15 982 (81·1) 81·0 (78·6, 83·4) 3727 (18·9) 19·0 (16·6, 21·4)
 ≥ 80 12 045 9913 (82·3) 82·3 (79·9, 84·7) 2132 (17·7) 17·7 (15·3, 20·1)
Year of diagnosis
 2006 18 841 16 964 (90·0) 90·0 (88·0, 91·9) 1877 (10·0) 10·0 (8·1, 12·0)
 2007 19 336 15 839 (81·9) 81·6 (78·9, 84·3) 3497 (18·1) 18·4 (15·7, 21·1)
 2008 19 958 14 377 (72·0) 71·6 (68·6, 74·6) 5581 (28·0) 28·4 (25·4, 31·4)
Sex
 M 32 361 26 400 (81·6) 81·3 (78·9, 83·6) 5961 (18·4) 18·7 (16·4, 21·1)
 F 25 774 20 780 (80·6) 80·6 (78·1, 83·0) 4994 (19·4 19·4 (17·0, 21·9)
Operation type
 Elective 51 530 40 865 (79·3) 79·1 (76·6, 81·7) 10 665 (20·7) 20·9 (18·3, 23·4)
 Emergency 6605 6315 (95·6) 95·2 (94·2, 96·2) 290 (4·4) 4·8 (3·8, 5·8)
Modified Dukes' stage at diagnosis
 A 7583 5661 (74·7) 75·0 (72·0, 78·0) 1922 (25·3) 25·0 (22·0, 28·0)
 B 20 982 16 942 (80·7) 80·4 (77·9, 82·8) 4040 (19·3) 19·6 (17·2, 22·1)
 C 20 370 16 770 (82·3) 82·1 (79·8, 84·5) 3600 (17·7) 17·9 (15·5, 20·2)
 ‘D’ 4992 4317 (86·5) 86·6 (84·6, 88·7) 675 (13·5) 13·4 (11·3, 15·4)
 Unknown 4208 3490 (82·9) 718 (17·1)
IMD income category
 1 (most affluent) 12 161 9753 (80·2) 79·8 (77·2, 82·4) 2408 (19·8) 20·2 (17·6, 22·8)
 2 12 745 10 290 (80·7) 80·4 (78·0, 82·9) 2455 (19·3) 19·6 (17·1, 22·0)
 3 12 535 10 113 (80·7) 80·8 (78·3, 83·2) 2422 (19·3) 19·2 (16·8, 21·7)
 4 10 994 9019 (82·0) 81·3 (78·7, 83·8) 1975 (18·0) 18·7 (16·2, 21·3)
 5 (most deprived) 8784 7298 (83·1) 81·8 (79·3, 84·4) 1486 (16·9) 18·2 (15·6, 20·7)
 Unknown 916 707 (77·2) 209 (22·8)
Cancer site
 Colon 42 814 34 576 (80·8) 80·6 (78·3, 82·9) 8238 (19·2) 19·4 (17·1, 21·7)
 Rectum 15 321 12 604 (82·3 81·7 (79·0, 84·5) 2717 (17·7) 18·3 (15·5, 21·0)
Charlson co-morbidity score
 0 46 957 37 717 (80·3) 80·2 (77·8, 82·0) 9240 (19·7) 19·8 (17·4, 22·2)
 1 7325 6177 (84·3) 83·9 (81·6, 86·2) 1148 (15·7) 16·1 (13·8, 18·4)
 2 2513 2139 (85·1) 84·9 (82·7, 87·1) 374 (14·9) 15·1 (12·9, 17·3)
 ≥ 3 1340 1147 (85·6) 85·4 (82·9, 87·9) 193 (14·4) 14·6 (12·1, 17·1)

Values in parentheses are *percentages and †95 per cent confidence intervals. IMD, Index of Multiple Deprivation.


[TableWrap ID: tbl2] Table 2 

Odds of use of an attempted laparoscopic approach


Complete case Multiple imputation


Odds ratio P Odds ratio P
Age at diagnosis (per 10 years) 0·99 (0·96, 1·01) 0·217 0·98 (0·96, 1·00) 0·059
Year of diagnosis 2·04 (1·97, 2·10) < 0·001 2·06 (2·00, 2·12) < 0·001
Sex 0·228 0·090
 M 1·00 1·00
 F 1·03 (0·98, 1·08) 1·04 (0·99, 1·09)
Operation type < 0·001 < 0·001
 Elective 1·00 1·00
 Emergency 0·14 (0·12, 0·16) 0·15 (0·13, 0·17)
Modified Dukes' stage at diagnosis < 0·001 < 0·001
 A 1·00 1·00
 B 0·73 (0·68, 0·78) 0·74 (0·69, 0·79)
 C 0·66 (0·61, 0·71) 0·66 (0·62, 0·71)
 ‘D’ 0·43 (0·39, 0·48) 0·45 (0·40, 0·50)
IMD income category 0·001 0·002
 1 (most affluent) 1·00 1·00
 2 0·98 (0·91, 1·05) 0·96 (0·90, 1·04)
 3 0·97 (0·90, 1·04) 0·96 (0·89, 1·03)
 4 0·91 (0·84, 0·98) 0·89 (0·83, 0·97)
 5 (most deprived) 0·84 (0·77, 0·92) 0·85 (0·78, 0·93)
Cancer site < 0·001 < 0·001
 Colon 1·00 1·00
 Rectum 0·72 (0·68, 0·76) 0·71 (0·67, 0·75)
Charlson co-morbidity score < 0·001 < 0·001
 0 1·00 1·00
 1 0·77 (0·71, 0·83) 0·77 (0·72, 0·83)
 2 0·76 (0·67, 0·87) 0·74 (0·66, 0·84)
 ≥ 3 0·68 (0·57, 0·81) 0·69 (0·58, 0·82)

Values in parentheses are 95 per cent confidence intervals. IMD, Index of Multiple Deprivation.


[TableWrap ID: tbl3] Table 3 

Characteristics of patients in whom laparoscopic surgery was completed and those in whom it was converted to an open procedure


Laparoscopic completed Converted from laparoscopic


n* Multilevel imputed† n* Multilevel imputed†
Age at diagnosis (years)
 < 60 1628 (86·6) 86·5 (84·6, 88·4) 251 (13·4) 13·5 (11·6, 15·4)
 60–69 2711 (84·3) 84·3 (82·6, 86·0) 506 (15·7) 15·7 (14·0, 17·4)
 70–79 3133 (84·1) 83·6 (81·9, 85·3) 594 (15·9) 16·4 (14·7, 18·1)
 ≥ 80 1831 (85·9) 85·6 (83·7, 87·4) 301 (14·1) 14·4 (12·6, 16·3)
Year of diagnosis
 2006 1629 (86·8) 86·4 (84·3, 88·5) 248 (13·2) 13·6 (11·5, 15·7)
 2007 2943 (84·2) 84·1 (82·5, 85·8) 554 (15·8) 15·9 (14·2, 17·5)
 2008 4731 (84·8) 84·5 (82·9, 86·1) 850 (15·2) 15·5 (13·9, 17·1)
Sex
 M 4919 (82·5) 82·2 (80·6, 83·8) 1042 (17·5) 17·8 (16·2, 19·4)
 F 4384 (87·8) 87·6 (86·3, 88·9) 610 (12·2) 12·4 (11·1, 13·7)
Operation type
 Elective 9083 (85·2) 84·9 (83·7, 86·2) 1582 (14·8) 15·1 (13·8, 16·3)
 Emergency 220 (75·9) 75·6 (69·6, 81·6) 70 (24·1) 24·4 (18·4, 30·4)
Modified Dukes' stage at diagnosis
 A 1677 (87·3) 87·3 (85·3, 89·2) 245 (12·7) 12·7 (10·8, 14·7)
 B 3423 (84·7) 84·5 (83·1, 86·0) 617 (15·3) 15·5 (14·0, 16·9)
 C 3033 (84·3) 84·1 (82·4, 85·8) 567 (15·7) 15·9 (14·2, 17·6)
 ‘D’ 554 (82·1) 82·4 (79·0, 85·9) 121 (17·9) 17·6 (14·1, 21·0)
 Unknown 616 (85·8) 102 (14·2)
IMD income category
 1 (most affluent) 2084 (86·5) 86·3 (84·5, 88·0) 324 (13·5) 13·7 (12·0, 15·5)
 2 2114 (86·1) 86·0 (84·2, 87·8) 341 (13·9) 14·0 (12·2, 15·8)
 3 2057 (84·9) 85·1 (83·2, 87·0) 365 (15·1) 14·9 (13·0, 16·8)
 4 1650 (83·5) 83·5 (81·7, 85·4) 325 (16·5) 16·5 (14·6, 18·3)
 5 (most deprived) 1219 (82·0) 82·1 (79·6, 84·6) 267 (18·0) 17·9 (15·4, 20·4)
 Unknown 179 (85·6) 30 (14·4)
Cancer site
 Colon 7062 (85·7) 85·5 (84·3, 86·7) 1176 (14·3) 14·5 (13·3, 15·7)
 Rectum 2241 (82·5) 82·2 (80·2, 84·3) 476 (17·5) 17·8 (15·7, 19·8)
Charlson co-morbidity score
 0 7851 (85·0) 84·7 (83·5, 86·0) 1389 (15·0) 15·3 (14·0, 16·5)
 1 968 (84·3) 84·3 (82·0, 86·6) 180 (15·7) 15·7 (13·4, 18·0)
 2 316 (84·5) 84·4 (80·2, 88·6) 58 (15·5) 15·6 (11·4, 19·8)
 ≥ 3 168 (87·0) 87·0 (82·1, 92·0) 25 (13·0) 13·0 (8·0, 17·9)

Values in parentheses are *percentages and †95 per cent confidence intervals. IMD, Index of Multiple Deprivation.


[TableWrap ID: tbl4] Table 4 

Odds of an attempted laparoscopic operation being converted to an open procedure


Complete case Multiple imputation


Odds ratio P Odds ratio P
Age at diagnosis (per 10 years) 1·02 (0·96, 1·07) 0·553 1·04 (0·99, 1·09) 0·152
Year of diagnosis 1·05 (0·97, 1·14) 0·198 1·05 (0·98, 1·13) 0·189
Sex < 0·001 < 0·001
 M 1·00 1·00
 F 0·63 (0·56, 0·71) 0·65 (0·58, 0·73)
Operation type < 0·001 < 0·001
 Elective 1·00 1·00
 Emergency 2·05 (1·51, 2·79) 2·06 (1·54, 2·76)
Modified Dukes' stage at diagnosis 0·002 0·002
 A 1·00 1·00
 B 1·29 (1·09, 1·52) 1·28 (1·08, 1·51)
 C 1·28 (1·08, 1·51) 1·30 (1·10, 1·54)
 ‘D’ 1·55 (1·20, 2·00) 1·56 (1·20, 2·03)
IMD income category 0·001 0·001
 1 (most affluent) 1·00 1·00
 2 1·03 (0·86, 1·23) 1·02 (0·86, 1·21)
 3 1·12 (0·94, 1·34) 1·12 (0·94, 1·33)
 4 1·23 (1·02, 1·48) 1·25 (1·05, 1·50)
 5 (most deprived) 1·47 (1·21, 1·80) 1·42 (1·17, 1·72)
Cancer site < 0·001 < 0·001
 Colon 1·00 1·00
 Rectum 1·29 (1·13, 1·47) 1·29 (1·14, 1·46)
Charlson co-morbidity score 0·720 0·755
 0 1·00 1·00
 1 1·05 (0·87, 1·26) 1·04 (0·87, 1·24)
 2 1·00 (0·74, 1·36) 1·00 (0·74, 1·34)
 ≥ 3 0·79 (0·49, 1·25) 0·81 (0·52, 1·25)

Values in parentheses are 95 per cent confidence intervals. IMD, Index of Multiple Deprivation.


[TableWrap ID: tbl5] Table 5 

Results of a multivariable regression model investigating outcomes in relation to approach to surgery


Measure of effect

Approach to surgery Complete case Multiple imputation
Postoperative length of stay Open 1·00 1·00
Laparoscopic completed 0·65 (0·64, 0·66) 0·65 (0·64, 0·66)
Conversion 0·92 (0·89, 0·95) 0·93 (0·89, 0·96)
30-day postoperative mortality Open 1·00 1·00
Laparoscopic completed 0·57 (0·49, 0·66) 0·55 (0·48, 0·64)
Conversion 0·67 (0·50, 0·90) 0·68 (0·52, 0·90)
1-year survival Open 1·00 1·00
Laparoscopic completed 0·61 (0·56, 0·66) 0·60 (0·55, 0·65)
Conversion 0·86 (0·72, 1·03) 0·84 (0·71, 1·00)

Values in parentheses are 95 per cent confidence intervals. The model was adjusted for sex, age at diagnosis, Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) income category, year of operation, tumour site (colon/rectum), modified Dukes' stage, operation type (elective or emergency) and presence of co-morbidity.



Article Categories:
  • Original Articles


Previous Document:  The greater effectiveness of Glomus mosseae and Glomus intraradices in improving productivity, oil c...
Next Document:  Cloning, Expression and Characterization of NADP-Dependent Isocitrate Dehydrogenase from Staphylococ...