Abstract
Introduction
Many patients with Crohn’s Disease will require surgical resection. While many studies have described outcomes following ileocecectomy, few have evaluated surgical resection of other portions of small bowel. We sought to compare open and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches for small bowel resection excluding ileocecectomy of patients with Crohn’s Disease using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database.
Methods
The NSQIP database was queried for patients with Crohn’s disease or complications related to Crohn’s disease who underwent segmental small bowel resection utilizing open or minimally invasive approaches between 2012 and 2018. Patients requiring ileocecectomy or diagnosed with ascites, disseminated cancer, pre-operative sepsis, ASA class 5, and patients requiring mechanical ventilation were excluded. The association of pre-operative variables including patient demographic information and comorbidities with surgical approach were examined using Fishers exact test. Intraoperative, and 30-day post-operative outcomes were compared between the groups using both univariate and multivariate logistical regression models. SAS was used for data analysis with p < 0.05 considered significant.
Results
After exclusions, we found 1697 patients with Crohn’s disease who underwent segmental small bowel resection, 1252 of whom underwent open surgery and 445 of whom underwent MIS. After adjusting for possible confounders with multivariable analysis, patients who underwent MIS had a lower incidence of wound events (surgical site, organ space, or deep wound infection, or dehiscence), post-operative bleeding, need for return to the operating room, and shorter total hospital length of stay despite longer operative times compared with open surgery.
Conclusions
This retrospective review of NSQIP shows that minimally invasive small bowel resection is associated with equivalent or improved morbidity over open surgery in select patients with small bowel Crohn’s Disease. We show that in select patients minimally invasive small bowel resection can be safe and performed for patients with isolated small bowel Crohn’s disease.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Crohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease with unclear etiology and insidious onset that can affect any part of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract from mouth to anus. It is characterized by inflammatory skip-lesions along the lining of the digestive system that can cause transmural inflammation, resulting in a range of GI pathologies including intestinal thickening, abscesses, fistulas, strictures, bowel obstruction, and bowel perforation. Despite advances in medical therapy and preference to avoid surgery, approximately 33% of Crohn’s patients will require surgery 5 years after initial diagnosis with almost 50% requiring surgery at 10 years [1].
Appropriate operative intervention for CD depends on both surgical indication and location. Common surgical procedures include endoscopic dilation, strictureplasty, or bowel resection. Despite the preference for bowel-sparing techniques, some patients will ultimately require bowel resection for definitive treatment which has been associated with significantly improved quality of life for certain patients [2]. With respect to resection, there is still controversy regarding the appropriateness of a minimally invasive approach to treat patients with CD. Often patients can present in extremis, requiring an urgent or emergent operation in which laparoscopy may not be the most appropriate initial approach. Additionally, technical challenges of laparoscopic bowel resection in Crohn’s patients can include difficulty manipulating inflamed bowel that may be adherent to other structures as well as dissection of thickened mesentery with increased vascularity without injury [3].
On the other hand, given that a significant proportion of patients with CD will require reoperation at some point in their lifetime, a minimally invasive approach may be of particular benefit to this patient population. Recently, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has grown in popularity to address CD [4,5,6]. Advantages of MIS for Crohn’s patients have been highlighted by several studies and include reduced morbidity, faster recovery, and lower cost of surgery as well as fewer small bowel obstructions and incisional hernias compared to patients undergoing open surgery [4,5,6,7,8,9]. Additionally, despite concerns of high recurrence due to potentially overlooking areas of diseased bowel requiring resection with MIS, no studies have shown a difference in rates of reoperation comparing open and MIS approaches [10, 11].
The most commonly affected location of disease in Crohn’s patients is the terminal ileum and cecum (55%) and therefore strong evidence has favored MIS ileocecectomy compared to open surgery. However, CD has been reported to show a pattern of isolated small bowel disease that can affect 11–48% of patients, with operative rates for isolated ileal disease described at approximately 50% at 5 years and 70% at 10 years [3, 12,13,14]. For these patients who may not have involvement of the ileocecal valve or who cannot undergo bowel-sparing techniques such as strictureplasty, segmental bowel resection may be the most appropriate surgical management option. Despite this, no randomized or well-powered retrospective studies have evaluated outcomes of patients requiring segmental bowel resection for CD isolated to the small bowel. In this study, we sought to examine overall outcomes of this patient population as well as the impact of operative approach comparing open surgery to MIS on 30-day outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database.
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed patients utilizing data from the main NSQIP database. Because the data from NSQIP is de-identified, this study was deemed exempt from our Institutional Review Board. We included patients with a diagnosis of CD (ICD10 codes K50.0, K50.9 or ICD9 codes 555.0, 555.9) who underwent either open small bowel resection (CPT code 44120, 44125, 44130) or minimally invasive small bowel resection (CPT code 44202) between 2012 and 2018. The patients were then divided into groups based on the operative approach: open small bowel resection and minimally invasive small bowel resection based on the CPT code. Patients who underwent conversion to an open procedure from MIS were included in the MIS cohort as part of an intention-to-treat analysis. Patients with ascites, disseminated cancer, sepsis, those who were ventilator-dependent, and those who were ASA class 5 were excluded. Additionally, as our intention was to evaluate patients who underwent small bowel resection only, patients who underwent ileocecectomy were excluded from analysis.
Patient demographics that were compared between the two operative groups included age, average BMI, sex, race, independent functional status, and ASA class. Additionally, past medical history including history of diabetes, smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF), hypertension, requirement for dialysis, pre-operative diagnosis of sepsis, pre-operative use of corticosteroids, bleeding pre-disposition, obesity, requirement for dialysis, anemia, and serum albumin < 3.5 were compared. Procedural characteristics such as wound class and classification of the procedure as emergent were also compared. Perioperative and 30-day post-operative outcomes were collected from the NSQIP database and analyzed to compare benefits or disadvantages of the two operative approaches. Outcomes of interest included cardiac events (cardiac arrest, MI), renal events (acute kidney injury, dialysis), pulmonary events (pneumonia, prolonged intubation, reintubation), post-operative sepsis (including septic shock), venous thromboembolism wound events (superficial surgical site infection, deep wound infection, organ space infection, dehiscence), stroke, urinary tract infection, Clostridium difficile infection, return to OR, 30-day mortality, mean operative time, and total hospital length of stay.
We examined associations of pre-operative variables and outcomes with procedure (Open vs MIS) using Fishers Exact test. Binary outcome associations with procedure were examined in multivariable logistic regression models. We eliminated covariates with p > 0.20 since these would have had minimal effects as confounds, but reduced degrees of freedom, thereby reducing power unnecessarily. SAS (Version 9.4, Cary, NC) was used for data analysis, with p < 0.05 considered significant.
Results
After exclusions, there were 1697 cases meeting inclusion criteria, 445 (26%) of which underwent MIS approach, 1252 (76%) an open approach. Demographic data are summarized in Table 1. The overall mean age of patients was 44.6 ± 16 years old, and mean BMI was 25 ± 6. 47% of all patients were female. 79% of all patients were White, 7% Black, 3% Hispanic, 2% Asian, and 9% unknown race. Surgical approaches differed significantly on several pre-operative variables. Patients who received MIS were slightly younger (41.5 ± 15.8 vs. 45.7 ± 15.9; p < 0.0001), more likely to have independent functional status (99.8% vs. 98.5%; p = 0.037) and less likely to have pre-op infection (2.0% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.008), low serum albumin (25.8% vs. 36.8%; p < 0.0001), anemia (26.1% vs. 37.4%; p < 0.0001), or to have emergency surgery (4.0% vs 6.8%; p = 0.038). The overall NSQIP computed morbidity and mortality probabilities were higher in patients who received open surgery as well (8.3% vs 16.7% and 0.3% vs 0.8%, respectively; p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between approaches in terms of sex, BMI, race, history of diabetes, smoking, dyspnea, COPD, CHF, HTN, pre-operative use of steroids, pre-operative weight loss, bleeding pre-disposition, pre-operative abnormal WBC count, or pre-operative ASA class. A specific breakdown of minimally invasive approaches is listed in Table 2. 343 (77%) of patients had procedures coded as laparoscopic only while 83 (19%) of patients had procedures coded as lap-assisted (including both “laparoscopic with hand assist” and “laparoscopic with open assist”. A minority of patients underwent robotic surgery (3%).
Results of univariable analysis are seen in Table 3. The conversion rate was approximately 2%, and 12 patients in the open cohort required an enterostomy. MIS was associated with a significantly lower rate of post-operative sepsis (3.8% vs. 7.0%; p = 0.021), wound events (8.3% vs. 16.7%; p < 0.0001), bleeding complications (4.3% vs. 11.5%; p < 0.0001), and return to OR (3.8% vs. 7.0%; p = 0.016), with a trend level significance for pulmonary events (0.9% vs 2.5%; p = 0.051). MIS was also associated with a significantly shorter total hospital length of stay (5.94 ± 4.65 days vs. 9.67 ± 9.31 days; p < 0.001), but a longer mean operative time (177.7 ± 98.3 min vs. 153.3 + 69.6 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in cardiac or renal events, venous thromboembolism, or 30-day mortality.
Results of multivariable regression analysis are seen in Table 4. After adjusting for possible confounding variables, open surgery was associated with significantly higher odds of wound events (OR 1.97; CI 1.36–2.87; p = 0.004), bleeding complications requiring transfusion (OR 2.27; CI 1.37–3.77; p = 0.02), and return to operating room (OR 1.73; CI 1.01–2.96); p = 0.046). No significant differences were found in cardiac, renal, or pulmonary events as well as post-operative venous thromboembolism, sepsis, or 30-day mortality.
Discussion
We believe ours is the first evaluation of open and minimally invasive approaches to address segmental bowel resection for isolated small bowel CD in the literature. We found that MIS for isolated small bowel resection in patients with CD was safe with comparable or improved perioperative morbidity compared to open surgery in select patients. In our study, MIS was associated with a statistically significant decrease in incidence of the most common complications including wound events, bleeding requiring transfusion, and return to operating room as well as significantly shorter total hospital length of stay despite longer mean operative time. MIS also had a reduced incidence of post-operative sepsis and trended toward reduced incidence of pulmonary events, after controlling for rates of pre-operative infection in multivariable analysis.
With regards to the rate of wound events, it is particularly remarkable that the wound complication rate was significantly lower for MIS compared to open surgery given the similarly high (> 50%) rate of steroid use in both cohorts and even after controlling for a slightly higher number of pre-operative infections in the open surgery cohort in multivariable analysis. These results are in concordance with other work comparing open and MIS with respect to wound infections for IBD and suggest that MIS independently is associated with decreased wound infection rates regardless of these other confounding factors [5, 16].
It is reported that 30–70% of all patients who receive surgery for CD will require repeat operations, and so these patients may particularly benefit from a minimally invasive approach due to the theoretical decrease in intraabdominal adhesions after MIS compared with open surgery [15]. Laparoscopic bowel resection for CD, however, can be technically demanding for several reasons. During the course of laparoscopic resection, the surgeon may encounter an inflammatory mass associated with the small bowel, unexpected abscess, internal fistula, thickened mesentery, enlarged lymph nodes, or multi-site disease [13]. If able to be addressed laparoscopically, these challenging situations likely explain the longer operative time we saw in MIS compared with open surgery. Ultimately, it may be easier to address these situations by converting to an open procedure and delivering the bowel into the wound to facilitate resection which may be the safest option for the patient.
Despite the particular difficulties that operating on patients with CD may carry, the conversion rate we found was exceedingly low at 2% (Tables 2, 3). In our search of the literature, we were unable to find any studies that described conversion rates for isolated small bowel resection alone that did not also include a majority of patients who underwent ileocecal resection. Therefore, although we cannot make comparisons between existing rates of conversion for small bowel resection, for laparoscopic ileocecetomy, reported conversion rates have a wide range from 2 to 40% [9, 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Our reported conversion rate of 2% is consistent with many studies reporting a similar low conversion rate [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. The low conversion rate could also be due to the fact that the small bowel is not adherent to the pelvic sidewall, unlike the cecum, and therefore is much easier to resect laparoscopically compared to the ileocecal region, even in Crohn’s patients. Put together, these results suggest that it may be possible to perform isolated small bowel resection for CD laparoscopically with a low and acceptable conversion rate.
Despite operative challenges in patients with CD, success with laparoscopy has been widely described for CD as it relates to the ileocecal region. Our results are similar to the work of others describing decreased rate of complications following ileocecectomy. A well-powered retrospective review of NSQIP by Lee et al. additionally showed that laparoscopic ileocecectomy was associated with reduction in both major and minor complications [5]. Additionally, a Cochrane review performed by Dasari et al. which comprised two randomized controlled trials including 120 patients also showed that laparoscopic ileocecectomy led to fewer wound infections and shorter length of stay despite longer operative time; however, no differences were found with respect to other post-operative complications including leak and intraabdominal abscess as well as similar 30-day reoperation rates [16]. Consistent with the results of our study of isolated small bowel disease, these results highlight the safety of MIS with resection of the ileocecal region in patients with CD.
This study does have some limitations. First, this is a retrospective review that is prone to selection bias that may affect the initial decision of surgical approach and the threshold for converting to an open approach. We were also unable to assess history of abdominal surgery which would obviously greatly affect the choice of surgical approach and would lead to significant selection bias. Selection bias was likely also affected by surgeon-specific factors not reported in NSQIP such as length in surgical practice, experience with MIS techniques, and history of fellowship training. We additionally could not control for all possible confounds (i.e. pre-operative differences between patients who received each procedure). Furthermore, NSQIP only reports 30-day outcomes, and therefore we were unable to assess long-term complications or recurrence. Additional limitations of the study were that we could not evaluate long-term recurrence rates requiring operation which have been reported to be up to 44% for small bowel disease [26]. We additionally had no way of determining the length of resection performed. A major limitation of this study is that definitions of what surgeons would consider to be an “MIS” approach may vary significantly in this study, especially with regards to differences between laparoscopic-assisted cases (including laparoscopic hand-assisted cases and laparoscopic with open assist) and an open case. We therefore decided to group all of these cases together to perform an intention-to-treat analysis. Also due to the limitations of NSQIP, we could not determine how many patients may have undergone intracorporeal anastomosis though most evidence suggests that there is no significant difference between anastomotic techniques [27].
Unfortunately, all studies evaluating outcomes comparing open and MIS small bowel resection for Crohn’s patients that we found in the literature also included patients who underwent ileocecectomy, and therefore results specific to patients who only underwent segmental small bowel resection were not described in those studies. Additionally, though laparoscopic small bowel resection overall has shown improved outcomes compared to open resection for patients without CD, it is difficult to compare results in patients with and without CD due to the associated comorbidities and particular difficulties of operating on Crohn’s patients [28, 29]. Therefore, a significant limitation of this study is that it is difficult to contextualize our results by comparing them to similar studies. Despite this, we believe that our results are concordant with the substantial amount of evidence supporting laparoscopy for CD requiring other types of bowel resection. We hope that in the future additional studies on this topic will be performed to provide further evidence for the benefits of laparoscopy for patients with CD.
Conclusions
Our goal was to increase the literature in surgical experience in the USA describing segmental resection for CD isolated to the small bowel. In summary, this large retrospective review of NSQIP demonstrates that select patients undergoing segmental small bowel resection for CD have equivalent or improved morbidity compared with open resection for the most common post-operative complications including wound complications, post-operative bleeding requiring transfusion, return to the operating room, and length of stay despite longer operating times. Our results show that laparoscopy can be performed safely for segmental resection in Crohn’s patients and should be offered to select patients by surgeons with expertise in minimally invasive techniques.
References:
Frolkis AD, Dykeman J, Negrón ME et al (2013) Risk of surgery for inflammatory bowel diseases has decreased over time: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies. Gastroenterology 145(5):996–1006
Delaney CP, Kiran RP, Senagore AJ et al (2003) Quality of life improves within 30 days of surgery for Crohn’s disease. J Am Coll Surg 196:714
Shaffer VO, Wexner SD (2013) Surgical management of Crohn’s disease. Langenbecks Arch Surg 398:13–27
Huang R, Valerian BT, Lee EC (2012) Laparoscopic approach in patients with recurrent Crohn’s disease. Am Surg 78:595
Lee Y, Fleming FJ, Deeb AP et al (2012) A laparoscopic approach reduces short-term complications and length of stay following ileocolic resection in Crohn’s disease: an analysis of outcomes from the NSQIP database. Colorectal Dis 14:572
Chaudhary B, Glancy D, Dixon AR (2011) Laparoscopic surgery for recurrent ileocolic Crohn’s disease is as safe and effective as primary resection. Colorectal Dis 13:1413
Aytac E, Stocchi L, Remzi FH, Kiran RP (2012) Is laparoscopic surgery for recurrent Crohn’s disease beneficial in patients with previous primary resection through midline laparotomy? A case-matched study. Surg Endosc 26:3552
Patel SV, Patel SV, Ramagopalan SV, Ott MC (2013) Laparoscopic surgery for Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis of perioperative complications and long term outcomes compared with open surgery. BMC Surg 13:14
Mege D, Michelassi F (2020) Laparoscopy in Crohn disease: learning curve and current practice. Ann Surg 271:317
Malireddy K, Larson DW, Sandborn WJ et al (2010) Recurrence and impact of postoperative prophylaxis in laparoscopically treated primary ileocolic Crohn disease. Arch Surg 145:42
Lowney JK, Dietz DW, Birnbaum EH et al (2006) Is there any difference in recurrence rates in laparoscopic ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease compared with conventional surgery? A long-term, follow-up study. Dis Colon Rectum 49:58
Fazio VW, Wu JS (1997) Surgical therapy for Crohn’s disease of the colon and rectum. Surg Clin North Am 77:197–210
Gardiner KR, Dasari BV (2007) Operative management of small bowel Crohn’s disease. Surg Clin North Am 87(3):587–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2007.03.011
Munkholm P, Binder V (2004) Clinical features and natural history of Crohn’s disease. In: Sartor R, Sandborn W (eds) Kirsner’s inflammatory bowel diseases, 6th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 289–300
Duepree HJ, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Brady KM, Fazio VW (2002) Advantages of laparoscopic resection for ileocecal Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45(5):605–610
Dasari BV, McKay D, Gardiner K (2011) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for small bowel Crohn’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 19(1):CD006956
Fleming FJ, Francone TD, Kim MJ, Gunzler D, Messing S, Monson JR (2011) A laparoscopic approach does reduce short-term complications in patients undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 54(2):176–182
Nguyen SQ, Teitelbaum E, Sabnis AA, Bonaccorso A, Tabrizian P, Salky B (2009) Laparoscopic resection for Crohn’s disease: an experience with 335 cases. Surg Endosc 23(10):2380–2384
Milsom JW, Hammerhofer KA, Bohm B, Marcello P, Elson P, Fazio VW (2001) Prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic vs. conventional surgery for refractory ileocolic Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum 44:1–9
Maartense S, Dunker MS, Slors JF, Cuesta MA, Pierik EG, Gouma DJ, Hommes DW, Sprangers MA, Bemelman WA (2006) Laparoscopic-assisted versus open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 243(2):143–149 (discussion 150-3)
Milsom JW (2005) Laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of Crohn’s disease. Surg Clin North Am 85(1):25–34
Tan JJ, Tjandra JJ (2007) Laparoscopic surgery for Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 50:576–585
Canin-Endres J, Salky B, Gattorno F, Edye M (1999) Laparoscopically assisted intestinal resection in 88 patients with Crohn’s disease. Surg Endosc 13:595–599
Pokala N, Delaney CP, Brady KM, Senagore AJ (2005) Elective laparoscopic surgery for benign internal enteric fistulas: a review of 43 cases. Surg Endosc 19:222–225
Schmidt CM, Talamini MA, Kaufman HS, Lilliemoe KD, Learn P, Bayless T (2001) Laparoscopic surgery for Crohn’s disease: reasons for conversion. Ann Surg 233(6):733–739
Whelan G, Farmer RG, Fazio VW et al (1985) Recurrence after surgery in Crohn’s disease: relationship to location of disease (clinical pattern) and surgical indication. Gastroen-terology 88:1826–1833
Michelassi F (2014) Crohn’s recurrence after intestinal resection and anastomosis. Dig Dis Sci 59(7):1352–1353
Sharma R, Reddy S, Thoman D, Grotts J, Ferrigno L (2015) Laparoscopic versus open bowel resection in emergency small bowel obstruction: analysis of the national surgical quality improvement program database. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 25(8):625–630. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2014.0446
Patel R, Borad NP, Merchant AM (2018) Comparison of outcomes following laparoscopic and open treatment of emergent small bowel obstruction: an 11-year analysis of ACS NSQIP. Surg Endosc 32(12):4900–4911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6249-2
Funding
This study was performed without grant support or support from other financial relationships.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Dr. Vincent J. Obias was a consultant for Intuitive, Medtronic, and Medrobotics. Dr. Michael L. Horsey, Dr. Debra Lai, Aalap Herur-Raman, Dr. Richard Amdur, Dr. Matthew Chandler, and Dr. Matthew Ng report have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Accepted for Podium Presentation at the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, August 28th, 2021, Las Vegas, NV.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Horsey, M.L., Lai, D., Herur-Raman, A. et al. Open versus minimally invasive small bowel resection for Crohn’s disease: a NSQIP retrospective review and analysis. Surg Endosc 36, 6278–6284 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08927-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08927-8