Literature DB >> 25082711

Contemporary national comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty.

Dennis B Liu1, Chandy Ellimoottil2, Andrew S Flum3, Jessica T Casey3, Edward M Gong3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine current and longitudinal trends in the usage of open (OP), laparoscopic (LP), and robotic pyeloplasties. (RALP) Furthermore, we aimed to describe patient and hospital level characteristics associated with the use of minimally invasive pyeloplasties (MIP) and to compare basic utilization metrics for each approach. MATERIALS/
METHODS: The 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009 Kid's Inpatient Databases (KID) were used to determine current and longitudinal trends. As a result of a specific billing code for robotic surgery introduced in 2008, the 2009 KID database was used for analysis of RALP. Patient and hospital characteristics examined included: age, gender, race, insurance status, hospital location, and academic status. Utilization metrics of length of stay (LOS) and cost were determined from each modality.
RESULTS: In 2009, there were 3354 pediatric pyeloplasties performed in the USA (85% OP, 3% LP, 12% RP). Compared with 2000, this represents an 11.7% decrease in the overall number of pyeloplasties but a progressive increase in MIP from 0.34% in 2000 to 11.7%. Mean patient age was 3.7 years for OP, 9.3 years for LP and 9.9 years for RALP. MIP was more commonly performed in females, Caucasians, patients with private insurance, at urban hospitals and at teaching hospitals. Although length of stay (LOS) in days was statistically lower for MIP (3.46 OP, 2.86 LP, 1.96 RP, p < 0.001), total cost between the groups was not statistically different. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, age (OR 1.17, p < 0.001) increased the odds of MIP whereas lack of private insurance decreased the odds of MIP (OR 0.62, p = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: Although utilization of MIP is increasing in the USA, especially in older children, OP remains predominant. MIP was associated with a decrease in LOS. The odds of MIP were higher in older children, whereas the lack of private insurance decreased the odds of MIP.
Copyright © 2014 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Kids' inpatient database; Laparoscopic pyeloplasty; Minimally invasive pyeloplasty; Pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction; Robotic pyeloplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25082711     DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.06.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pediatr Urol        ISSN: 1477-5131            Impact factor:   1.830


  16 in total

1.  Tubeless outpatient robotic upper urinary tract reconstruction in the pediatric population: short-term assessment of safety.

Authors:  Eric J Fichtenbaum; Andrew C Strine; Charles W Concodora; Marion Schulte; Paul H Noh
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-06-21

2.  An updated meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children.

Authors:  Yidong Huang; Yang Wu; Wei Shan; Li Zeng; Lugang Huang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-04-15

Review 3.  Single-Site Laparoscopy and Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Urology.

Authors:  Diana K Bowen; Jason P Van Batavia; Arun K Srinivasan
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Outcomes after pediatric open, laparoscopic, and robotic pyeloplasty at academic institutions.

Authors:  Yvonne Y Chan; Blythe Durbin-Johnson; Renea M Sturm; Eric A Kurzrock
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 1.830

Review 5.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population: a review of technique, outcomes, complications, and special considerations in infants.

Authors:  William R Boysen; Mohan S Gundeti
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 1.827

6.  Has the robot caught up? National trends in utilization, perioperative outcomes, and cost for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty in the United States from 2003 to 2015.

Authors:  Briony K Varda; Ye Wang; Benjamin I Chung; Richard S Lee; Michael P Kurtz; Caleb P Nelson; Steven L Chang
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 1.830

7.  Comparison of 30-day perioperative outcomes in adults undergoing open versus minimally invasive pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: analysis of 593 patients in a prospective national database.

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

Review 8.  Global trends in paediatric robot-assisted urological surgery: a bibliometric and Progressive Scholarly Acceptance analysis.

Authors:  Thomas P Cundy; Simon J D Harley; Hani J Marcus; Archie Hughes-Hallett; Sanjeev Khurana
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-04-28

9.  Can proctoring affect the learning curve of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty? Experience at a high-volume pediatric robotic surgery center.

Authors:  Diana K Bowen; Bruce W Lindgren; Earl Y Cheng; Edward M Gong
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-06-24

Review 10.  Comparing the efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted versus open pyeloplasty in children: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shang-Jen Chang; Chun-Kai Hsu; Cheng-Hsing Hsieh; Stephen Shei-Dei Yang
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.