Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The use of artificial neural networks to predict delayed discharge and readmission in enhanced recovery following laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Artificial neural networks (ANNs) can be used to develop predictive tools to enable the clinical decision-making process. This study aimed to investigate the use of an ANN in predicting the outcomes from enhanced recovery after colorectal cancer surgery.

Methods

Data were obtained from consecutive colorectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery within the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program between 2002 and 2009 in a single center. The primary outcomes assessed were delayed discharge and readmission within a 30-day period. The data were analyzed using a multilayered perceptron neural network (MLPNN), and a prediction tools were created for each outcome. The results were compared with a conventional statistical method using logistic regression analysis.

Results

A total of 275 cancer patients were included in the study. The median length of stay was 6 days (range 2–49 days) with 67 patients (24.4 %) staying longer than 7 days. Thirty-four patients (12.5 %) were readmitted within 30 days. Important factors predicting delayed discharge were related to failure in compliance with ERAS, particularly with the postoperative elements in the first 48 h. The MLPNN for delayed discharge had an area under a receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.817, compared with an AUROC of 0.807 for the predictive tool developed from logistic regression analysis. Factors predicting 30-day readmission included overall compliance with the ERAS pathway and receiving neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer. The MLPNN for readmission had an AUROC of 0.68.

Conclusions

These results may plausibly suggest that ANN can be used to develop reliable outcome predictive tools in multifactorial intervention such as ERAS. Compliance with ERAS can reliably predict both delayed discharge and 30-day readmission following laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Dejong CHC, Fearon KCH, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN (2010) The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing major elective open colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr 29:434–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Teeuwen PHE, Bliechrodt RP, Strik C et al (2010) Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) versus conventional postoperative care in colorectal surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 14:88–95

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Greco M, Capretti G, Beretta L, Gemma M, Pecorelli N, Braga M (2014) Enhanced recovery program in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 38:1531–1541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ahmed J, Khan S, Lim M, Chandrasekaran TV, MacFie J (2012) Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols–compliance and variations in practice during routine colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 14:1045–1051

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lyon A, Solomon MJ, Harrison JD (2014) A qualitative study assessing the barriers to implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery. World J Surg 38:1374–1380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Maessen J, Dejong CHC, Hausel J et al (2007) A protocol is not enough to implement an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection. Br J Surg 94:224–231

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tu JV (1996) Advantages and disadvantages of using artificial neural networks versus logistic regression for predicting medical outcomes. J Clin Epidimiol 49:1225–1231

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ramesh AN, Kambhampati C, Monson JRT, Drew PJ (2004) Artificial intelligence in medicine. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 86:334–338

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Prabhudesai SG, Gould S, Rekhaj S, Tekkis PP, Glazer G, Ziprin P (2008) Artificial neural networks: useful aid in diagnosing acute appendicitis. World J Surg 32:305–309

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bottaci L, Drew PJ, Hartley JE et al (1997) Artficial neural networks applied to outcome prediction for colorectal cancer patients in separate institutions. Lancet 16:470–472

    Google Scholar 

  11. Shi HY, Lee KT, Wang JJ, Sun DP, Lee HH, Chiu CC (2012) Artificial neural network model for predicting 5-year mortality after surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma: a nationwide study. J Gastrointest Surg 16:2126–2131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tsai JT, Hou MF, Chen YM, Wan THT, Kao HY, Shi HY (2013) Predicting quality of life after breast cancer surgery using ANN-based models: performance comparison with MR. Support Care Cancer 21:1341–1350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grossman R, Kamath CPK, Kumar V, Namburu R (2001) Data mining for scientific and engineering applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Kattan MW (2008) Editorial comment on: development, validation, and head-to-head comparison of logistic regression-based nomograms and artificial neural network models predicting prostate cancer on initial extended biops. Eur Urol 54:611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zurada JM (1992) Artificial neural systems. West Publishing Company, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  16. Haykin S (1994) Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation. Macmillan College Publishing Company, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  17. Boulind C, Allison A, Burkill C, Wett A, Kennedy R, Francis N (2012) Factors predicting outcome in Enhanced Recovery after Laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 14:e103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Smart NJ, White P, Allison AS, Ockrim JB, Kennedy RH, Francis NK (2012) Deviation and failure of enhanced recovery after surgery following laparoscopic colorectal surgery: early prediction model. Colorectal Dis 14:727–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hendry PO, Hausel J, Nygren J et al (2009) Determinants of outcome after colorectal resection within an enhanced recovery programme. Br J Surg 96:197–205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Birgisson H, Pahlman L, Gunnarsson U, Glimelius B, Swedisch Rectal Cancer Trial Group (2005) Adverse effects of preoperative radiation therapy for rectal cancer: long-term follow-up of the Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial. J Clin Oncol 34:8697–8705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Komori K, Kimura K, Kinoshita T et al (2014) Complications associated with postoperative adjuvant radiation therapy for advanced rectal cancer. Int Surg 2:100–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical approval

Institutional approval for the study was obtained from the Research ethics board at Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, BA21 4AT, UK

    N. K. Francis, A. Luther, L. Allanby, D. Messenger, A. S. Allison & J. B. Ockrim

  2. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK

    N. K. Francis

  3. Colorectal Unit, Yeovil District Hospital Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, Somerset, BA21 4AT, UK

    E. Salib

  4. Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, Barrack Road, Exeter, Devon, EX2 5DW, UK

    N. J. Smart

Authors
  1. N. K. Francis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Luther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Salib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Allanby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Messenger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. S. Allison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. N. J. Smart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J. B. Ockrim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. K. Francis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Francis, N.K., Luther, A., Salib, E. et al. The use of artificial neural networks to predict delayed discharge and readmission in enhanced recovery following laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Tech Coloproctol 19, 419–428 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-015-1319-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-015-1319-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation