BACKGROUND: Many American hospitals will soon face readmission penalties deducted from Medicare reimbursements, which will place further scrutiny on techniques that may offer reduced postoperative morbidity. We aimed to perform the first multi-institutional study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, to compare predictors of readmission within cohorts of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) in a contemporary nationwide series of radical prostatectomy. METHODS: All patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in 2011 were identified in the NSQIP database using procedural codes. As no patients in the analysis underwent LRP, patients were grouped as RRP or RALRP for analysis. Perioperative variables were analyzed using chi-squared and Student's t-tests as appropriate. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify readmission risk factors. RESULTS: Of 5471 patient cases analyzed, 4374 (79.9%) and 1097 (20.1%) underwent RALRP and RRP, respectively. RRP and RALRP cohorts experienced different readmission rates (5.47% vs 3.48%, respectively; p=0.002). In addition, RRP experienced a higher rate of overall complications than RALRP (23.25% vs 5.62%, respectively; p<0.001), but not higher rates of reoperation (1.09% vs 0.96%, respectively; p=0.689). Overall predictors of readmission included operative time, dyspnea, and RRP or RALRP procedure type. Current smoking and patient age were predictive of readmission for RRP only, while dyspnea was predictive of readmission following RALRP only. CONCLUSION: This is the first multi-institutional retrospective study that examines readmission rates and procedural intracohort predictors of readmission for RRP in the contemporary United States. We report a significant difference in postoperative complication and readmission rates in RRP compared with RALRP. Further prospective analysis is warranted.
BACKGROUND: Many American hospitals will soon face readmission penalties deducted from Medicare reimbursements, which will place further scrutiny on techniques that may offer reduced postoperative morbidity. We aimed to perform the first multi-institutional study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, to compare predictors of readmission within cohorts of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) in a contemporary nationwide series of radical prostatectomy. METHODS: All patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in 2011 were identified in the NSQIP database using procedural codes. As no patients in the analysis underwent LRP, patients were grouped as RRP or RALRP for analysis. Perioperative variables were analyzed using chi-squared and Student's t-tests as appropriate. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify readmission risk factors. RESULTS: Of 5471 patient cases analyzed, 4374 (79.9%) and 1097 (20.1%) underwent RALRP and RRP, respectively. RRP and RALRP cohorts experienced different readmission rates (5.47% vs 3.48%, respectively; p=0.002). In addition, RRP experienced a higher rate of overall complications than RALRP (23.25% vs 5.62%, respectively; p<0.001), but not higher rates of reoperation (1.09% vs 0.96%, respectively; p=0.689). Overall predictors of readmission included operative time, dyspnea, and RRP or RALRP procedure type. Current smoking and patient age were predictive of readmission for RRP only, while dyspnea was predictive of readmission following RALRP only. CONCLUSION: This is the first multi-institutional retrospective study that examines readmission rates and procedural intracohort predictors of readmission for RRP in the contemporary United States. We report a significant difference in postoperative complication and readmission rates in RRP compared with RALRP. Further prospective analysis is warranted.
Authors: Kathleen B Cartmell; Mary Dooley; Martina Mueller; Georges J Nahhas; Clara E Dismuke; Graham W Warren; Vince Talbot; K Michael Cummings Journal: Med Care Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Hiten D Patel; Mark W Ball; Jason E Cohen; Max Kates; Phillip M Pierorazio; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: Urology Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Kathleen B Cartmell; Clara E Dismuke; Mary Dooley; Martina Mueller; Georges J Nahhas; Graham W Warren; Peter Fallis; K Michael Cummings Journal: Med Care Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Bartosz Małkiewicz; Paweł Kiełb; Jakub Karwacki; Róża Czerwińska; Paulina Długosz; Artur Lemiński; Łukasz Nowak; Wojciech Krajewski; Tomasz Szydełko Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 4.241