BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Minimally invasive pyeloplasty is an effective treatment for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction that offers quicker convalescence than open pyeloplasty. Technical challenges, however, may have limited its dissemination. We examined population trends and determinants of surgical options for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the State Inpatient and Ambulatory Surgery Databases for Florida, we identified adults who underwent ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair between 2001 and 2009. After determining the surgical approach (minimally invasive pyeloplasty, open pyeloplasty, or endopyelotomy), we estimated annual utilization rates and the effects of patient, surgeon, and hospital predictors on surgery type, using multilevel multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Rates of minimally invasive pyeloplasty increased 360% (P for monotonic trend < 0.01), while rates of open pyeloplasty decreased 56% (P<0.01). Rates of endopyelotomy were substantially higher and remained relatively stable (P=0.27). Compared with open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty was used more commonly among patients with private insurance (odds ratio [OR] 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.3), those treated at teaching hospitals (OR 1.6; CI 1.0-2.6), and those treated by high-volume surgeons (OR 2.9; CI 2.0-4.2). Its use was less frequent among patients with multiple comorbidities (OR 0.53; CI 0.37-0.76). Similar associations were observed when comparing receipt of minimally invasive pyeloplasty with endopyelotomy; however, patients who underwent endopyelotomy were older. CONCLUSIONS: The use of minimally invasive pyeloplasty has dramatically increased, largely replacing open pyeloplasty, while the use of endopyelotomy, albeit significantly more common than the other approaches, has remained stable. The surgical approach is influenced by several patient, surgeon, and hospital factors.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Minimally invasive pyeloplasty is an effective treatment for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction that offers quicker convalescence than open pyeloplasty. Technical challenges, however, may have limited its dissemination. We examined population trends and determinants of surgical options for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the State Inpatient and Ambulatory Surgery Databases for Florida, we identified adults who underwent ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair between 2001 and 2009. After determining the surgical approach (minimally invasive pyeloplasty, open pyeloplasty, or endopyelotomy), we estimated annual utilization rates and the effects of patient, surgeon, and hospital predictors on surgery type, using multilevel multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Rates of minimally invasive pyeloplasty increased 360% (P for monotonic trend < 0.01), while rates of open pyeloplasty decreased 56% (P<0.01). Rates of endopyelotomy were substantially higher and remained relatively stable (P=0.27). Compared with open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty was used more commonly among patients with private insurance (odds ratio [OR] 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.3), those treated at teaching hospitals (OR 1.6; CI 1.0-2.6), and those treated by high-volume surgeons (OR 2.9; CI 2.0-4.2). Its use was less frequent among patients with multiple comorbidities (OR 0.53; CI 0.37-0.76). Similar associations were observed when comparing receipt of minimally invasive pyeloplasty with endopyelotomy; however, patients who underwent endopyelotomy were older. CONCLUSIONS: The use of minimally invasive pyeloplasty has dramatically increased, largely replacing open pyeloplasty, while the use of endopyelotomy, albeit significantly more common than the other approaches, has remained stable. The surgical approach is influenced by several patient, surgeon, and hospital factors.
Authors: Yair Lotan; Christian Bolenz; Amit Gupta; Timothy Hotze; Richard Ho; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Claus G Roehrborn Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-10-28 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: A V Diez Roux; S S Merkin; D Arnett; L Chambless; M Massing; F J Nieto; P Sorlie; M Szklo; H A Tyroler; R L Watson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-07-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Carlo C Passerotti; Ana Maria A M S Passerotti; Marcos F Dall'Oglio; Katia R M Leite; Ricardo L V Nunes; Miguel Srougi; Alan B Retik; Hiep T Nguyen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Bruce L Jacobs; Rachana Seelam; Julie C Lai; 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
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: 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
Authors: Riccardo Schiavina; Stefano Zaramella; Francesco Chessa; Cristian Vincenzo Pultrone; Marco Borghesi; Andrea Minervini; Andrea Cocci; Andrea Chindemi; Alessandro Antonelli; Claudio Simeone; Vincenzo Pagliarulo; Paolo Parma; Alessanrdo Samuelli; Antonio Celia; Bernardino De Concilio; Bernardo Rocco; Elisa De Lorenzis; Gaetano La Manna; Carlo Terrone; Mario Falsaperla; Donato Dente; Angelo Porreca Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2016-05-21
Authors: Benjamin Y Li; Kenneth L Urish; Bruce L Jacobs; Chang He; Tudor Borza; Yongmei Qin; Hye Sung Min; James M Dupree; Chad Ellimoottil; Brent K Hollenbeck; Mariel S Lavieri; Jonathan E Helm; Ted A Skolarus Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-11-01
Authors: Annemarie Uhlig; Johannes Uhlig; Lutz Trojan; Marc Hinterthaner; Alexander von Hammerstein-Equord; Arne Strauss Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 2.264