OBJECTIVE: To evaluate contemporary national trends and outcomes of open pyeloplasty (OP) vs minimally invasive pyeloplasty (MIP) in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. METHODS: Patients treated by OP or MIP between 2006 and 2011 were identified by The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes corresponding to pyeloplasty as their primary operative procedure. Perioperative variables were analyzed using the chi-square and the Student t test. Multiple logistic regressions were used to identify morbidities and readmission risk factors. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five patients were identified. Of them, 20.2% of cases were OP and 79.8% were MIP. There was a significant increase in MIP from 33% in 2006 to 83% in 2011 (P <.001). A total of 11.7% of patients in the MIP group underwent outpatient surgery (P = .002). Patients treated at a teaching hospital were over 3 times more likely to undergo MIP (odds ratio = 3.17; P = .001). There was significantly longer hospitalization in OP vs MIP (3.9 vs. 2.2 days; P = .001). OP was associated with significantly increased risk of reoperation or postoperative morbidity compared with MIP (11.1% vs. 4.2%; P = .02). Multivariate analysis confirmed a higher rate of overall morbidity in the OP cohort (P = .03). Male patients had significantly higher postoperative morbidity or reoperation rates (odds ratio = 4.38; P = .002). There was no significant difference in operative time between groups (P = .2). CONCLUSION: Within the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program hospitals, MIP is associated with decreased reoperation and postoperative morbidity compared with OP.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate contemporary national trends and outcomes of open pyeloplasty (OP) vs minimally invasive pyeloplasty (MIP) in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. METHODS:Patients treated by OP or MIP between 2006 and 2011 were identified by The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes corresponding to pyeloplasty as their primary operative procedure. Perioperative variables were analyzed using the chi-square and the Student t test. Multiple logistic regressions were used to identify morbidities and readmission risk factors. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five patients were identified. Of them, 20.2% of cases were OP and 79.8% were MIP. There was a significant increase in MIP from 33% in 2006 to 83% in 2011 (P <.001). A total of 11.7% of patients in the MIP group underwent outpatient surgery (P = .002). Patients treated at a teaching hospital were over 3 times more likely to undergo MIP (odds ratio = 3.17; P = .001). There was significantly longer hospitalization in OP vs MIP (3.9 vs. 2.2 days; P = .001). OP was associated with significantly increased risk of reoperation or postoperative morbidity compared with MIP (11.1% vs. 4.2%; P = .02). Multivariate analysis confirmed a higher rate of overall morbidity in the OP cohort (P = .03). Male patients had significantly higher postoperative morbidity or reoperation rates (odds ratio = 4.38; P = .002). There was no significant difference in operative time between groups (P = .2). CONCLUSION: Within the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program hospitals, MIP is associated with decreased reoperation and postoperative morbidity compared with OP.
Authors: Bruce L Jacobs; Rachana Seelam; Julie C Lai; Janet M Hanley; J Stuart Wolf; Brent K Hollenbeck; John M Hollingsworth; Andrew W Dick; Claude M Setodji; Christopher S Saigal Journal: J Endourol Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Geolani W Dy; Ryan S Hsi; Sarah K Holt; Thomas S Lendvay; John L Gore; Jonathan D Harper Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-02-28 Impact factor: 7.450