Literature DB >> 22440402

Impact of case volumes on the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Dedan Opondo1, Ahmet Tefekli, Tarik Esen, Gaston Labate, Kandasami Sangam, Antonello De Lisa, Hemendra Shah, Jean de la Rosette.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated relationships between case volumes and outcomes in surgery. Little is known about the impact of case volumes on the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of case volumes on the efficacy and safety outcomes of PCNL. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From November 2007 to December 2009, prospective data were collected by the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society from consecutive patients over a 1-yr period in 96 centers globally. Data of 3933 patients in the Global PCNL study database were included in this study. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patients were divided into low- and high-volume groups based on the median annual case volume of their respective treatment center. Preoperative characteristics and outcomes were compared between the two groups. Case volume was treated as a continuous variable. The relationship between case volume and stone-free (SF) rate, complication rate, and duration of hospital stay was explored using multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: SF rates were higher in high-volume centers (82.5% vs 75.1%; p value <0.001). Complication rates were lower in high-volume centers (15.9% vs 21.7%; p value 0.002), whereas the mean (standard deviation [SD]) duration of stay was shorter in high-volume centers (3.4 [2.6] vs 4.9 [3.7] d; p value <0.001). SF rate increased with case volume, whereas complication rate and duration of stay diminished with increasing case volumes after adjusting for stone burden, urine culture status, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and the presence of staghorn stones. The highest SF rates were observed in centers with >120 cases per year.
CONCLUSIONS: Centers that perform high numbers of PCNLs per year achieve better results. Both the efficacy and safety outcomes of PCNL improve with the number of surgeries performed in a given center per year.
Copyright © 2012 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22440402     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  15 in total

1.  [Calyceal stones].

Authors:  C Netsch; A J Gross
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Comparison of intraoperative and postoperative complications based on ASA risks in patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Hüseyin Buğra Karakaş; İzzet Çiçekbilek; Adem Tok; Tamer Alışkan; Bülent Akduman
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2016-09

Review 3.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: technique.

Authors:  Thomas Knoll; Francisco Daels; Janak Desai; Andras Hoznek; Bodo Knudsen; Emanuele Montanari; Cesare Scoffone; Andreas Skolarikos; Keiichi Tozawa
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-01-25       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Costs variations for percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the U.S. from 2003-2015: A contemporary analysis of an all-payer discharge database.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Leow; Anne-Sophie Valiquette; Benjamin I Chung; Steven L Chang; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Rus Korets; Naeem Bhojani
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Implementation of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MIP): comparison of the initial learning curve with the later on clinical routine in a tertiary centre.

Authors:  T Bergmann; T R W Herrmann; Th Schiller; U Zimmermann; M Burchardt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  Predictability and Practicality of Image-Based Scoring Systems for Patient Assessment and Outcome Stratification During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: a Contemporary Update.

Authors:  Linda My Huynh; Erica Huang; Roshan M Patel; Zhamshid Okhunov
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  The stone surgeon in the mirror: how are German-speaking urologists treating large renal stones today?

Authors:  Martin Schoenthaler; Simon Hein; Christian Seitz; Christian Türk; Hansjörg Danuser; Werner Vach; Arkadiusz Miernik
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Lessons learned from the CROES percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study.

Authors:  Guido M Kamphuis; Joyce Baard; Matias Westendarp; Jean J M C H de la Rosette
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 9.  Incidence of posterolateral and retrorenal colon in supine and prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Kyung Jae Hur; Hyong Woo Moon; Sung Min Kang; Kang Sup Kim; Yong Sun Choi; Hyukjin Cho
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 3.436

10.  Managing caliceal stones.

Authors:  Andreas J Gross; Sophie Knipper; Christopher Netsch
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2014-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.