Short-Term Outcomes for Robotic Colorectal Surgery by Provider Volume

Abstract

In Brief BACKGROUND: There has been a rapid increase in robotic colorectal surgery. Benefits of this technology are unclear and being investigated. However, differences in outcomes between centers have not been evaluated. Our aim was to evaluate outcomes for robotic colorectal procedures by surgeon and hospital volume. STUDY DESIGN: A national inpatient database was reviewed for robotic colorectal resections performed during an 18-month period. Hospitals and surgeons were stratified into high, average, and low case volumes based on a normal distribution scale. High, average, and low volume was defined as ≤10, 11 to 20, and >20, respectively, for hospitals, and ≤5, 6 to 15, and >15, respectively, for surgeons. Short-term outcomes and hospital cost were evaluated. RESULTS: There were 1,428 robotic colorectal cases across 123 hospitals and 411 surgeons evaluated. Only 13% (n = 16) of hospitals and 4.4% (n = 18) of surgeons performed a high volume of robotic colorectal cases. Lower volume was associated with significantly more overall complications (p < 0.001; p < 0.001), longer length of stay (p = 0.005; p < 0.001), and higher cost (p < 0.001; p < 0.001) at the hospital and surgeon level, respectively. High-volume hospitals and surgeons had significantly lower rates of postoperative bleeding (p < 0.001; p < 0.001) and ileus (p = 0.003; p = 0.0014). CONCLUSIONS: Lower-volume providers, who are performing the majority of procedures, are generating more complications, longer hospital lengths of stay, and higher costs of care. These results have a negative impact on quality outcomes measures for those facilities. Although surgeons and hospitals continue to selectively explore robotics, this should be limited to high volume and interested surgeons and hospitals to offer high-quality outcomes to patients. Robotic colorectal surgery has rapidly spread, but little is reported on outcomes by surgeon and hospital volume. Most cases were performed at low-volume hospitals and by low-volume surgeons. Low-volume providers had higher complication rates, longer lengths of stay, and higher costs. Regionalizing robotics might improve outcomes and cost efficiency.