PURPOSE: Minimally invasive pyeloplasty might have several advantages compared to open pyeloplasty in the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Nonetheless, minimally invasive pyeloplasty appears to be underused in North America. We examined specific patient and hospital characteristics that may be associated with these disparities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify a national estimate of 29,456 patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction treated with minimally invasive pyeloplasty (laparoscopic or robotic) and open pyeloplasty between 1998 and 2009. The rates of use of minimally invasive and open pyeloplasty were assessed according to year of surgery, and patient and hospital characteristics. The determinants of minimally invasive pyeloplasty were evaluated using logistic regression models adjusted for clustering. RESULTS: Overall 15.3% of patients underwent minimally invasive pyeloplasty between 1998 and 2009. The use of minimally invasive pyeloplasty increased remarkably during the study period from 2.4% to 55.3%, a 23-fold increase. On multivariable logistic regression analysis African-American race (OR 0.584, p = 0.015) and other insurance status (including uninsured patients, OR 0.613, p = 0.013) were associated with a lower rate of minimally invasive pyeloplasty. Patients treated at teaching (OR 1.788, p = 0.003) and/or urban (OR 4.819, p <0.001) institutions were significantly more likely to undergo minimally invasive pyeloplasty. CONCLUSIONS: In the last decade there has been a dramatic increase in the use of minimally invasive pyeloplasty in the United States and in 2009 a slight majority underwent minimally invasive pyeloplasty. Nonetheless, treatment disparities exist. African-American patients with other insurance status (including those uninsured) treated at nonteaching, rural hospitals were less likely to undergo minimally invasive pyeloplasty. Efforts should be made to understand these treatment disparities and broaden the availability of minimally invasive pyeloplasty.
PURPOSE: Minimally invasive pyeloplasty might have several advantages compared to open pyeloplasty in the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Nonetheless, minimally invasive pyeloplasty appears to be underused in North America. We examined specific patient and hospital characteristics that may be associated with these disparities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify a national estimate of 29,456 patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction treated with minimally invasive pyeloplasty (laparoscopic or robotic) and open pyeloplasty between 1998 and 2009. The rates of use of minimally invasive and open pyeloplasty were assessed according to year of surgery, and patient and hospital characteristics. The determinants of minimally invasive pyeloplasty were evaluated using logistic regression models adjusted for clustering. RESULTS: Overall 15.3% of patients underwent minimally invasive pyeloplasty between 1998 and 2009. The use of minimally invasive pyeloplasty increased remarkably during the study period from 2.4% to 55.3%, a 23-fold increase. On multivariable logistic regression analysis African-American race (OR 0.584, p = 0.015) and other insurance status (including uninsured patients, OR 0.613, p = 0.013) were associated with a lower rate of minimally invasive pyeloplasty. Patients treated at teaching (OR 1.788, p = 0.003) and/or urban (OR 4.819, p <0.001) institutions were significantly more likely to undergo minimally invasive pyeloplasty. CONCLUSIONS: In the last decade there has been a dramatic increase in the use of minimally invasive pyeloplasty in the United States and in 2009 a slight majority underwent minimally invasive pyeloplasty. Nonetheless, treatment disparities exist. African-American patients with other insurance status (including those uninsured) treated at nonteaching, rural hospitals were less likely to undergo minimally invasive pyeloplasty. Efforts should be made to understand these treatment disparities and broaden the availability of minimally invasive pyeloplasty.
Authors: M Traumann; L A Kluth; M Schmid; C Meyer; B Schwaiger; C Rosenbaum; P Schriefer; M Fisch; R Dahlem; D Seiler; S Ahyai; A Haese; F K-H Chun Journal: Urologe A Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Geolani W Dy; Ryan S Hsi; Sarah K Holt; Thomas S Lendvay; John L Gore; Jonathan D Harper Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-02-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Hilary Zetlen; Kenn B Daratha; Jonathan D Harper; Hunter Wessells; Kenneth P Roberts; John L Gore Journal: Urology Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Bruce L Jacobs; Julie C Lai; Rachana Seelam; Janet M Hanley; J Stuart Wolf; Brent K Hollenbeck; John M Hollingsworth; Andrew W Dick; Claude M Setodji; Christopher S Saigal Journal: Urology Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Briony K Varda; Ye Wang; Benjamin I Chung; Richard S Lee; Michael P Kurtz; Caleb P Nelson; Steven L Chang Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 1.830
Authors: Julian Hanske; Alejandro Sanchez; Marianne Schmid; Christian P Meyer; Firas Abdollah; Florian Roghmann; Adam S Feldman; Adam S Kibel; Jesse D Sammon; Joachim Noldus; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jairam R Eswara Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Bruce L Jacobs; Julie C Lai; Rachana Seelam; Janet M Hanley; J Stuart Wolf; Brent K Hollenbeck; John M Hollingsworth; Andrew W Dick; Claude M Setodji; Christopher S Saigal Journal: J Endourol Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 2.942