Literature DB >> 23480795

Trends in surgery for upper urinary tract calculi in the USA using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample: 1999-2009.

Khurshid R Ghani1, Jesse D Sammon, Pierre I Karakiewicz, Maxine Sun, Naeem Bhojani, Shyam Sukumar, James O Peabody, Mani Menon, Quoc-Dien Trinh.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine trends in demographics and treatment for inpatient upper urinary tract calculi in the USA using a population-based cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with a primary or secondary diagnosis of kidney or ureteric calculus between 1999 and 2009 in the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample were extracted and weighted. Temporal trend analyses were used to determine trends in gender, race and age presentation, as well as utilization rates of interventions. Temporal trends were quantified using the estimated annual percent change (EAPC) using least squares linear regression analysis.
RESULTS: Overall, 2 109 455 patients were hospitalized with upper urinary tract calculi over the 11-year period. The majority of admissions were for ureteric calculi (63.4%). Admissions for renal calculus increased by 12.1% during the study period (EAPC + 0.92%, P = 0.039, 95% CI: 0.17-1.66), whilst discharges for ureteric calculus remained stable. A significant increase (25.4%) in hospitalizations for women was found (EAPC + 2.21%, P < 0.001, 95% CI: 1.40-3.03); by 2006, more women than men were admitted to hospital (95 953 vs. 94 556, respectively). There were significant increases in hospitalization for black, Hispanic and older patients. Significant changes in the use of all studied interventions were found except for ureteroscopy, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and nephrectomy.
CONCLUSIONS: In this nationally representative sample of inpatient discharges, significant increases were found in admissions for renal compared with ureteric calculi, and for black, Hispanic and older patients. With regard to surgical intervention, the largest increase was found in the use of procedures for kidney calculi. Women now comprise the majority in the inpatient management of stone disease.
© 2013 BJU International.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23480795     DOI: 10.1111/bju.12059

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  19 in total

1.  Comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of intermediate proximal ureteral and renal stones in the elderly.

Authors:  Henglong Hu; Yuchao Lu; Deng He; Lei Cui; Jiaqiao Zhang; Zhenyu Zhao; Baolong Qin; Yufeng Wang; Feng Lin; Shaogang Wang
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-12-24       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 2.  Medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: where do we go from here?

Authors:  Bhaskar K Somani; Omar Aboumarzouk; Olivier Traxer; Joyce Baard; Guido Kamphuis; Jean de la Rosette
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Metabolic evaluation guidelines in patients with nephrolithiasis: Are they being followed? Results of a national, multi-institutional, quality-assessment study.

Authors:  Sabrina S Harmouch; Hiba Abou-Haidar; Hassan Elhawary; Thomas Grgic; Andrea G Lantz; Jason Y Lee; Ben H Chew; Sero Andonian; Naeem Bhojani
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 4.  What is the stone-free rate following flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones?

Authors:  Khurshid R Ghani; J Stuart Wolf; J Stuart Wolf
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Comprehensive analysis of in-hospital delirium after major surgical oncology procedures: A population-based study.

Authors:  Marco Bandini; Michele Marchioni; Felix Preisser; Sebastiano Nazzani; Zhe Tian; Markus Graefen; Francesco Montorsi; Fred Saad; Shahrokh F Shariat; Luigi Schips; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2019-09-27       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  Attitudes of urologists on metabolic evaluation for urolithiasis: outcomes of a global survey from 57 countries.

Authors:  Mehmet Ali Karagöz; Selçuk Güven; Tzevat Tefik; Mehmet İlker Gökçe; Murat Can Kiremit; Feyzi Arda Atar; Muhammed Arif İbiş; Yasin Yitgin; Abubekir Böyük; Samed Verep; Kemal Sarıca
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2022-09-28       Impact factor: 2.861

7.  Urolithiasis in Germany: Trends from the National DRG Database.

Authors:  Hendrik Heers; David Stay; Thomas Wiesmann; Rainer Hofmann
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 1.934

Review 8.  Flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) with holmium laser versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stone <2 cm: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yuanyuan Mi; Kewei Ren; Haiyan Pan; Lijie Zhu; Sheng Wu; Xiaoming You; Hongbao Shao; Feng Dai; Tao Peng; Feng Qin; Jian Wang; Yi Huang
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Urolithiasis prevalence in the Russian Federation: analysis of trends over a 15-year period.

Authors:  Nariman Gadzhiev; Michail Prosyannikov; Vigen Malkhasyan; Gagik Akopyan; Bhaskar Somani; Andrey Sivkov; Oleg Apolikhin; Andrey Kaprin
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Comprehensive flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) simulator for training in endourology: The K-box model.

Authors:  Luca Villa; Bhaskar K Somani; Tarik Emre Sener; Jonathan Cloutier; Jonathan Cloutier; Salvatore Butticè; Francesco Marson; Achilles Ploumidis; Silvia Proietti; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2016-01-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.