OBJECTIVES: Recent work has demonstrated comparable surgical results and 5-year cancer-specific survival rates between radical nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) in the treatment of patients with small (4 cm or smaller) solitary renal cell carcinomas (RCCs). However, differences exist in the intraoperative management and postoperative care of patients undergoing NSS versus radical nephrectomy, and we sought to compare direct hospital costs and length of stay (LOS) between these two groups to determine whether either treatment imparts a specific cost advantage. METHODS: Data were retrieved from medical records and administrative data sets containing billing encounters for all costs incurred during hospitalization at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. Individual costs were grouped together using nine cost center categories encompassing every aspect of direct hospital care, including anesthesiology, laboratory, radiology, nursing, pharmaceutical, and emergency services, and medical care, surgical care, and miscellaneous costs. Each cost center was further subdivided, and a total of 52 cost subcategories were assessed. The total direct costs of hospitalization were compared using a multivariate regression model in which patient demographics and tumor characteristics, type and year of surgery, LOS, and cost center categories were assessed as single and interactive factors. Postoperative complication and cancer-specific survival rates were also compared to identify any potential therapeutic differences between the two groups. RESULTS: Between 1991 and 1995, 80 patients underwent surgery at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation for solitary RCCs 4 cm or smaller, including 52 partial and 28 radical nephrectomies. We found no difference in the postoperative complication rate or cancer-specific survival rate between the two surgical groups. Total direct hospital costs and LOS were not statistically different between the NSS and radical nephrectomy groups (P >0.05). This was further supported by our multivariate model, which accounted for 61% of the observed variance in the total costs (F = 12.11, P = 0.0001). The type of surgery was not associated with total cost when controlling for all other factors, including age, sex, year of surgery, tumor size, grade, and stage, and postoperative complications (P = 0.7). There was no significant interaction between the type of surgery and the LOS (P = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that elective NSS can be performed with equivalent direct hospital costs and LOS when compared with patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for small solitary RCCs. These data have significant economic implications for the comparison of competing surgical treatment strategies for localized RCC.
OBJECTIVES: Recent work has demonstrated comparable surgical results and 5-year cancer-specific survival rates between radical nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) in the treatment of patients with small (4 cm or smaller) solitary renal cell carcinomas (RCCs). However, differences exist in the intraoperative management and postoperative care of patients undergoing NSS versus radical nephrectomy, and we sought to compare direct hospital costs and length of stay (LOS) between these two groups to determine whether either treatment imparts a specific cost advantage. METHODS: Data were retrieved from medical records and administrative data sets containing billing encounters for all costs incurred during hospitalization at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. Individual costs were grouped together using nine cost center categories encompassing every aspect of direct hospital care, including anesthesiology, laboratory, radiology, nursing, pharmaceutical, and emergency services, and medical care, surgical care, and miscellaneous costs. Each cost center was further subdivided, and a total of 52 cost subcategories were assessed. The total direct costs of hospitalization were compared using a multivariate regression model in which patient demographics and tumor characteristics, type and year of surgery, LOS, and cost center categories were assessed as single and interactive factors. Postoperative complication and cancer-specific survival rates were also compared to identify any potential therapeutic differences between the two groups. RESULTS: Between 1991 and 1995, 80 patients underwent surgery at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation for solitary RCCs 4 cm or smaller, including 52 partial and 28 radical nephrectomies. We found no difference in the postoperative complication rate or cancer-specific survival rate between the two surgical groups. Total direct hospital costs and LOS were not statistically different between the NSS and radical nephrectomy groups (P >0.05). This was further supported by our multivariate model, which accounted for 61% of the observed variance in the total costs (F = 12.11, P = 0.0001). The type of surgery was not associated with total cost when controlling for all other factors, including age, sex, year of surgery, tumor size, grade, and stage, and postoperative complications (P = 0.7). There was no significant interaction between the type of surgery and the LOS (P = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that elective NSS can be performed with equivalent direct hospital costs and LOS when compared with patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for small solitary RCCs. These data have significant economic implications for the comparison of competing surgical treatment strategies for localized RCC.
Authors: William C Huang; Andrew S Levey; Angel M Serio; Mark Snyder; Andrew J Vickers; Ganesh V Raj; Peter T Scardino; Paul Russo Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Frank Kunath; Stefanie Schmidt; Laura-Maria Krabbe; Arkadiusz Miernik; Philipp Dahm; Anne Cleves; Mario Walther; Nils Kroeger Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-05-09
Authors: Phillip M Pierorazio; Michael H Johnson; Hiten D Patel; Stephen M Sozio; Ritu Sharma; Emmanuel Iyoha; Eric B Bass; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Bruce R Kava; Rosely De Los Santos; Rajinikanth Ayyathurai; Samir Shirodkar; Murugesan Manoharan; Raymond Leveillee; Vincent Bird; Gaetano Ciancio; Mark S Soloway Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-01-30 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: R Houston Thompson; Sameer Siddiqui; Christine M Lohse; Bradley C Leibovich; Paul Russo; Michael L Blute Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-10-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: S Agrawal; M S Jha; N Khurana; M S A Ansari; D Dubey; A Srivastava; R Kapoor; A Kumar; M Jain; A Mandhani Journal: Indian J Urol Date: 2007-01