Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

NCT number NCT03765411
Other study ID # Robotic Proct in the Elderly
Secondary ID
Status Completed
Phase
First received
Last updated
Start date January 1, 2013
Est. completion date April 15, 2017

Study information

Verified date December 2018
Source Tripler Army Medical Center
Contact n/a
Is FDA regulated No
Health authority
Study type Observational [Patient Registry]

Clinical Trial Summary

The objective was to evaluate the use and outcomes of robotic proctectomy compared to open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer in the elderly. A retrospective cross-sectional cohort study utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS; 2006-2013) was performed.


Description:

The objective was to evaluate the use and outcomes of robotic proctectomy compared to open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer in the elderly. A retrospective cross-sectional cohort study utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS; 2006-2013) was performed. All cases were restricted to age 70 years old or greater. The incidence of robotic proctectomy from 2006 - 2013 both as a whole as well as divided into approach was analyzed. Each approach was compared for both primary and secondary outcomes.


Recruitment information / eligibility

Status Completed
Enrollment 6740
Est. completion date April 15, 2017
Est. primary completion date April 15, 2013
Accepts healthy volunteers
Gender All
Age group 70 Years and older
Eligibility Inclusion Criteria:

- 70 years of age or older

- underwent proctectomy

Exclusion Criteria:

- emergent admissions

- abdominoperineal resections

Study Design


Related Conditions & MeSH terms


Intervention

Procedure:
Proctectomy
Resection of the rectum

Locations

Country Name City State
United States Tripler Army Medical Center Honolulu Hawaii

Sponsors (2)

Lead Sponsor Collaborator
Tripler Army Medical Center Madigan Army Medical Center

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (34)

Agha RA, Borrelli MR, Vella-Baldacchino M, Thavayogan R, Orgill DP; STROCSS Group. The STROCSS statement: Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery. Int J Surg. 2017 Oct;46:198-202. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.08.586. Epub 2017 Sep 7. — View Citation

Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery confers lower mortality in the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 66,483 patients. Surg Endosc. 2015 Feb;29(2):322-33. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-367 — View Citation

Baek JH, Pastor C, Pigazzi A. Robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc. 2011 Feb;25(2):521-5. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1204-x. Epub 2010 Jul 7. — View Citation

Baik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS, Hur H, Sohn SK, Cho CH, Kim H. Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Jun;16(6):1480-7. doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0435-3. Epu — View Citation

Champagne BJ, Delaney CP. Laparoscopic approaches to rectal cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2007 Aug;20(3):237-48. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-984868. — View Citation

Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83. — View Citation

Cheung HY, Chung CC, Fung JT, Wong JC, Yau KK, Li MK. Laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer in octogenarians: results in a decade. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007 Nov;50(11):1905-10. Epub 2007 Sep 26. — View Citation

D'Annibale A, Pernazza G, Monsellato I, Pende V, Lucandri G, Mazzocchi P, Alfano G. Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013 Jun;27(6):1887 — View Citation

Damle A, Damle RN, Flahive JM, Schlussel AT, Davids JS, Sturrock PR, Maykel JA, Alavi K. Diffusion of technology: Trends in robotic-assisted colorectal surgery. Am J Surg. 2017 Nov;214(5):820-824. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.03.020. Epub 2017 Mar 21. — View Citation

Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998 Jan;36(1):8-27. — View Citation

Fielding LP, Phillips RK, Hittinger R. Factors influencing mortality after curative resection for large bowel cancer in elderly patients. Lancet. 1989 Mar 18;1(8638):595-7. — View Citation

Frasson M, Braga M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, Di Carlo V. Benefits of laparoscopic colorectal resection are more pronounced in elderly patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008 Mar;51(3):296-300. doi: 10.1007/s10350-007-9124-0. Epub 2008 Jan 15. — View Citation

Guiding principles for the care of older adults with multimorbidity: an approach for clinicians. Guiding principles for the care of older adults with multimorbidity: an approach for clinicians: American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on the Care of Older — View Citation

Halabi WJ, Kang CY, Jafari MD, Nguyen VQ, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A. Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World J Surg. 2013 Dec;37(12):2782-90. doi: 10.1007/s00268-013- — View Citation

Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N, Tilney H, Gudgeon M, Bianchi PP, Edlin R, Hulme C, Brown J. Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to — View Citation

Jayne DG, Brown JM, Thorpe H, Walker J, Quirke P, Guillou PJ. Bladder and sexual function following resection for rectal cancer in a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open technique. Br J Surg. 2005 Sep;92(9):1124-32. — View Citation

Keller DS, Senagore AJ, Lawrence JK, Champagne BJ, Delaney CP. Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc. 2014 Jan;28(1):212-21. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3163-5. Epub 2013 Aug 31. — View Citation

Kim JY, Kim NK, Lee KY, Hur H, Min BS, Kim JH. A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Aug;19(8):2485 — View Citation

Law WL, Chu KW, Tung PH. Laparoscopic colorectal resection: a safe option for elderly patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2002 Dec;195(6):768-73. — View Citation

Lee MG, Chiu CC, Wang CC, Chang CN, Lee SH, Lee M, Hsu TC, Lee CC. Trends and Outcomes of Surgical Treatment for Colorectal Cancer between 2004 and 2012- an Analysis using National Inpatient Database. Sci Rep. 2017 May 17;7(1):2006. doi: 10.1038/s41598-01 — View Citation

Li Y, Wang S, Gao S, Yang C, Yang W, Guo S. Laparoscopic colorectal resection versus open colorectal resection in octogenarians: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and efficacy. Tech Coloproctol. 2016 Mar;20(3):153-62. doi: 10.1007/s10151-015 — View Citation

Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer: case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Dec;17(12):3195-202. doi: 10.1245/s10434-010-1162-5. Epub 2010 Jun 30. — View Citation

Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH. S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2011 Jan;25(1):240-8. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1166-z. Epub 2010 Jun 15. — View Citation

Park S, Kim NK. The Role of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Overcoming Technical Challenges in Laparoscopic Surgery by Advanced Techniques. J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Jul;30(7):837-46. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.7.837. Epub 2015 Jun 10. Review. — View Citation

Schlussel AT, Delaney CP, Maykel JA, Lustik MB, Nishtala M, Steele SR. A National Database Analysis Comparing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in Laparoscopic vs Open Colectomie — View Citation

Schlussel AT, Lustik MB, Johnson EK, Maykel JA, Champagne BJ, Damle A, Ross HM, Steele SR. A nationwide assessment comparing nonelective open with minimally invasive complex colorectal procedures. Colorectal Dis. 2016 Mar;18(3):301-11. doi: 10.1111/codi.1 — View Citation

Seishima R, Okabayashi K, Hasegawa H, Tsuruta M, Shigeta K, Matsui S, Yamada T, Kitagawa Y. Is laparoscopic colorectal surgery beneficial for elderly patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015 Apr;19(4):756-65. doi: 10.1007 — View Citation

Singh JA, Kwoh CK, Boudreau RM, Lee GC, Ibrahim SA. Hospital volume and surgical outcomes after elective hip/knee arthroplasty: a risk-adjusted analysis of a large regional database. Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Aug;63(8):2531-9. doi: 10.1002/art.30390. — View Citation

Stocchi L, Nelson H, Young-Fadok TM, Larson DR, Ilstrup DM. Safety and advantages of laparoscopic vs. open colectomy in the elderly: matched-control study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000 Mar;43(3):326-32. — View Citation

Tam MS, Kaoutzanis C, Mullard AJ, Regenbogen SE, Franz MG, Hendren S, Krapohl G, Vandewarker JF, Lampman RM, Cleary RK. A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2016 Feb;30(2):455-63. doi: 10 — View Citation

Tan KY, Kawamura Y, Mizokami K, Sasaki J, Tsujinaka S, Maeda T, Konishi F. Colorectal surgery in octogenarian patients--outcomes and predictors of morbidity. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009 Feb;24(2):185-9. doi: 10.1007/s00384-008-0615-9. Epub 2008 Dec 3. — View Citation

van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Fürst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC, Bonjer HJ; COlorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection II (COLOR II) Study Group. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phas — View Citation

Vignali A, Di Palo S, Tamburini A, Radaelli G, Orsenigo E, Staudacher C. Laparoscopic vs. open colectomies in octogenarians: a case-matched control study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005 Nov;48(11):2070-5. — View Citation

Washington CW, Derdeyn CP, Dacey RG Jr, Dhar R, Zipfel GJ. Analysis of subarachnoid hemorrhage using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample: the NIS-SAH Severity Score and Outcome Measure. J Neurosurg. 2014 Aug;121(2):482-9. doi: 10.3171/2014.4.JNS131100. Epub 2 — View Citation

* Note: There are 34 references in allClick here to view all references

Outcome

Type Measure Description Time frame Safety issue
Primary In-hospital Complications Complications to include mechanical wound, infections, urinary, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, systemic, surgical, and any complication through study completion, an average of 5 days
Secondary In-hospital mortality Death during admission through study completion, an average of 5 days
Secondary Length of Stay Length of in hospital stay through study completion, an average of 5 days
Secondary Costs and Charges Hospital charges refer to the total amount billed by the hospital. Hospital cost refers to the amount paid by the insurance provider through study completion, an average of 5 days
See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Recruiting NCT06380101 - Evaluating a Nonessential Amino Acid Restriction (NEAAR) Medical Food With Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer (LARC) N/A
Active, not recruiting NCT05551052 - CRC Detection Reliable Assessment With Blood
Recruiting NCT04323722 - Impact of Bladder Depletion on Mesorectal Movements During Radiotherapy in Rectal Cancer N/A
Recruiting NCT06006390 - CEA Targeting Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Lymphocytes (CAR-T) in the Treatment of CEA Positive Advanced Solid Tumors Phase 1/Phase 2
Active, not recruiting NCT04088955 - A Digimed Oncology PharmacoTherapy Registry
Active, not recruiting NCT01347697 - Collagen Implant (Biological Mesh) Versus GM Flap for Reconstruction of Pelvic Floor After ELAPE in Rectal Cancer N/A
Recruiting NCT04495088 - Preoperative FOLFOX Versus Postoperative Risk-adapted Chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Phase 3
Withdrawn NCT03007771 - Magnetic Resonance-guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MR-HIFU) Used for Mild Hyperthermia Phase 1
Terminated NCT01347645 - Irinotecan Plus E7820 Versus FOLFIRI in Second-Line Therapy in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Colon or Rectal Cancer Phase 1/Phase 2
Not yet recruiting NCT03520088 - PROSPECTIVE CONTROLLED AND RANDOMIZED STUDY OF THE GENITOURINARY FUNCTION AFTER RECTAL CANCER SURGERY IN RELATION TO THE DISSECTION OF THE INFERIOR MESENTERIC VESSELS N/A
Recruiting NCT05556473 - F-Tryptophan PET/CT in Human Cancers Phase 1
Recruiting NCT04749381 - The Role of TCM on ERAS of Rectal Cancer Patients Phase 2
Enrolling by invitation NCT05028192 - Mitochondria Preservation by Exercise Training: a Targeted Therapy for Cancer and Chemotherapy-induced Cachexia
Recruiting NCT03283540 - Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer on Anal Physiology + Fecal Incontinence
Completed NCT04534309 - Behavioral Weight Loss Program for Cancer Survivors in Maryland N/A
Recruiting NCT05914766 - An Informational and Supportive Care Intervention for Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer N/A
Recruiting NCT04852653 - A Prospective Feasibility Study Evaluating Extracellular Vesicles Obtained by Liquid Biopsy for Neoadjuvant Treatment Response Assessment in Rectal Cancer
Recruiting NCT03190941 - Administering Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes Transduced With a Murine T-Cell Receptor Recognizing the G12V Variant of Mutated RAS in HLA-A*11:01 Patients Phase 1/Phase 2
Completed NCT02810652 - Perioperative Geriatrics Intervention for Older Cancer Patients Undergoing Surgical Resection N/A
Terminated NCT02933944 - Exploratory Study of TG02-treatment as Monotherapy or in Combination With Pembrolizumab to Assess Safety and Immune Activation in Patients With Locally Advanced Primary and Recurrent Oncogenic RAS Exon 2 Mutant Colorectal Cancer Phase 1