OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of hospital volume on partial nephrectomy indications and outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from the National Observational Registry on the Practice and Hemostasis in Partial Nephrectomy registry. Four groups were created according to the number of partial nephrectomy (PN) performed: very high (VH, ≥ 19 PN), high (H, 10-18 PN), moderate (M, 4-9 PN) and low (L, <4 PN) PN activity. Indications and surgical outcomes were compared among all groups. The effect of hospital volume on postoperative complications and positive margin rate was examined by a multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-three centers included a total of 570 PN. There were 9 VH, 13 H, 12 M and 19 L volume centers which performed 270 (47.4 %), 179 (31.4 %), 74 (13 %) and 47 (8.2 %) PN, respectively. Patients in higher volume centers were significantly younger (p = 0.008), had a lower BMI (p = 0.002) and decreased ASA score (p < 0.001). PN was more frequently performed in higher volume centers (p = 0.006) particularly in case of renal masses <4 cm (p = 0.005). Open surgery was the most common approach in all groups, but laparoscopic PN was more frequent in M volume hospitals (p < 0.001). Positive margin (p = 0.06) and complications (p = 0.022) rates were higher in M group. In multivariable analysis, renal chronic disease was an independent predictor of positive margin rate (p < 0.001, OR 3.91). CONCLUSIONS: PN is more frequently performed in high volume institutions particularly for small renal masses. We observed increase positive margin and complication rates in moderate volume centers that might be explained by an increased use of laparoscopy.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of hospital volume on partial nephrectomy indications and outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from the National Observational Registry on the Practice and Hemostasis in Partial Nephrectomy registry. Four groups were created according to the number of partial nephrectomy (PN) performed: very high (VH, ≥ 19 PN), high (H, 10-18 PN), moderate (M, 4-9 PN) and low (L, <4 PN) PN activity. Indications and surgical outcomes were compared among all groups. The effect of hospital volume on postoperative complications and positive margin rate was examined by a multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-three centers included a total of 570 PN. There were 9 VH, 13 H, 12 M and 19 L volume centers which performed 270 (47.4 %), 179 (31.4 %), 74 (13 %) and 47 (8.2 %) PN, respectively. Patients in higher volume centers were significantly younger (p = 0.008), had a lower BMI (p = 0.002) and decreased ASA score (p < 0.001). PN was more frequently performed in higher volume centers (p = 0.006) particularly in case of renal masses <4 cm (p = 0.005). Open surgery was the most common approach in all groups, but laparoscopic PN was more frequent in M volume hospitals (p < 0.001). Positive margin (p = 0.06) and complications (p = 0.022) rates were higher in M group. In multivariable analysis, renal chronic disease was an independent predictor of positive margin rate (p < 0.001, OR 3.91). CONCLUSIONS: PN is more frequently performed in high volume institutions particularly for small renal masses. We observed increase positive margin and complication rates in moderate volume centers that might be explained by an increased use of laparoscopy.
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert Abouassaly; Antonio Finelli; George A Tomlinson; David R Urbach; Shabbir M H Alibhai Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Colin B Begg; Elyn R Riedel; Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren; Peter T Scardino Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R Houston Thompson; Brian R Lane; Christine M Lohse; Bradley C Leibovich; Amr Fergany; Igor Frank; Inderbir S Gill; Michael L Blute; Steven C Campbell Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Maxine Sun; Marco Bianchi; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Firas Abdollah; Jan Schmitges; Claudio Jeldres; Shahrokh F Shariat; Markus Graefen; Francesco Montorsi; Paul Perrotte; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Steffen Lebentrau; Thomas Enzmann; Mike Lehsnau; Frank Christoph; Martin Schostak; Matthias May Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ercan Malkoç; Matthew J Maurice; Önder Kara; Daniel Ramirez; Ryan J Nelson; Julien Dagenais; Khaled Fareed; Amr Fergany; Robert J Stein; Pascal Mouracade; Jihad H Kaouk Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2019-01-01
Authors: Ray C J Hsu; Theodosia Salika; Jonathan Maw; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Vincent J Gnanapragasam; James N Armitage Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Steffen Lebentrau; Gamal Anton Wakileh; Martin Schostak; Hans-Peter Schmid; Rodrigo Suarez-Ibarrola; Axel S Merseburger; Georg C Hutterer; Ulrike H Necknig; Michael Rink; Martin Bögemann; Luis Alex Kluth; Armin Pycha; Maximilian Burger; Sabine D Brookman-May; Johannes Bründl; Matthias May Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: João André Mendes Carvalho; Pedro Nunes; Edgar Tavares-da-Silva; Belmiro Parada; Roberto Jarimba; Pedro Moreira; Edson Retroz; Rui Caetano; Vítor Sousa; Augusta Cipriano; Arnaldo Figueiredo Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2020-10-02