Hung-Jui Tan1, J Stuart Wolf2, Zaojun Ye3, Khaled S Hafez4, David C Miller5. 1. Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 2. Michigan Center for Minimally Invasive Urology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; University of Michigan Center for Healthcare Outcomes & Policy, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: dcmiller@umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The comparative outcomes of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy remain incompletely defined. Therefore, we used population based data to examine resource use and short-term outcomes among patients with kidney cancer treated with laparoscopic vs open partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using linked SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare data we identified patients with kidney cancer treated with laparoscopic or open partial nephrectomy from 2000 through 2007. We then used Medicare claims to identify several postoperative outcomes including intensive care unit care, length of stay, rehospitalizations, operative mortality and postoperative complications. We fit multivariate logistic regression models to estimate the association between each outcome and surgical approach (ie laparoscopic partial nephrectomy vs open partial nephrectomy), adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 651 (28%) and 1,670 (72%) patients treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy, respectively. Compared to those who underwent open partial nephrectomy, patients treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy had a 34% lower probability of requiring intensive care unit time (20.0% vs 30.2%, p <0.001) and shorter median length of stay (3 vs 5 days, p <0.001), with no differences observed in the likelihood of rehospitalization or operative mortality. While the frequency of postoperative complications was similar (35.5% vs 36.1%, p = 0.829), patients treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy had a nearly twofold greater probability of genitourinary complications and postoperative hemorrhage (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: At a population level the patients with kidney cancer treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy experienced a shorter and less intense hospitalization, supporting the benefits of laparoscopy. However, the greater likelihood of procedure related complications highlights the need for continued efforts aimed at ensuring the safe adoption and application of this advanced surgical technique.
PURPOSE: The comparative outcomes of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy remain incompletely defined. Therefore, we used population based data to examine resource use and short-term outcomes among patients with kidney cancer treated with laparoscopic vs open partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using linked SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare data we identified patients with kidney cancer treated with laparoscopic or open partial nephrectomy from 2000 through 2007. We then used Medicare claims to identify several postoperative outcomes including intensive care unit care, length of stay, rehospitalizations, operative mortality and postoperative complications. We fit multivariate logistic regression models to estimate the association between each outcome and surgical approach (ie laparoscopic partial nephrectomy vs open partial nephrectomy), adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 651 (28%) and 1,670 (72%) patients treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy, respectively. Compared to those who underwent open partial nephrectomy, patients treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy had a 34% lower probability of requiring intensive care unit time (20.0% vs 30.2%, p <0.001) and shorter median length of stay (3 vs 5 days, p <0.001), with no differences observed in the likelihood of rehospitalization or operative mortality. While the frequency of postoperative complications was similar (35.5% vs 36.1%, p = 0.829), patients treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy had a nearly twofold greater probability of genitourinary complications and postoperative hemorrhage (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: At a population level the patients with kidney cancer treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy experienced a shorter and less intense hospitalization, supporting the benefits of laparoscopy. However, the greater likelihood of procedure related complications highlights the need for continued efforts aimed at ensuring the safe adoption and application of this advanced surgical technique.
Authors: Adam D Talenfeld; Renee L Gennarelli; Elena B Elkin; Coral L Atoria; Jeremy C Durack; William C Huang; Sharon W Kwan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kevin Phan; Jun S Kim; John Di Capua; Nathan J Lee; Parth Kothari; James Dowdell; Samuel C Overley; Javier Z Guzman; Samuel K Cho Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2017-05-31