Julian Hanske1,2, Alejandro Sanchez3, Marianne Schmid4,5, Christian P Meyer6,7, Firas Abdollah8, Florian Roghmann9, Adam S Feldman10, Adam S Kibel11, Jesse D Sammon12, Joachim Noldus13, Quoc-Dien Trinh14, Jairam R Eswara15. 1. Division of Urologic Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 45 Francis Street, ASB II-3, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. j.hanske@gmx.de. 2. Department of Urology, Marien Hospital, Ruhr-University Bochum, Widumer Strasse 8, 44627, Herne, Germany. j.hanske@gmx.de. 3. Department of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. asanchez6@partners.org. 4. Division of Urologic Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 45 Francis Street, ASB II-3, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. dr.marianne.schmid@gmail.com. 5. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. dr.marianne.schmid@gmail.com. 6. Division of Urologic Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 45 Francis Street, ASB II-3, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. christian.p.meyer@gmail.com. 7. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. christian.p.meyer@gmail.com. 8. Vattikuti Urology Institute Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics and Evaluation, Henry Ford Health System, 2799 W Grand Blvd, Detroit, MI, 48202-2689, USA. firas.abdollah@gmail.com. 9. Department of Urology, Marien Hospital, Ruhr-University Bochum, Widumer Strasse 8, 44627, Herne, Germany. f.roghmann@gmail.com. 10. Department of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. afeldman@partners.org. 11. Division of Urologic Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 45 Francis Street, ASB II-3, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. akibel@partners.org. 12. Vattikuti Urology Institute Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics and Evaluation, Henry Ford Health System, 2799 W Grand Blvd, Detroit, MI, 48202-2689, USA. jsammon79@gmail.com. 13. Department of Urology, Marien Hospital, Ruhr-University Bochum, Widumer Strasse 8, 44627, Herne, Germany. joachim.noldus@marienhospital-herne.de. 14. Division of Urologic Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 45 Francis Street, ASB II-3, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. trinh.qd@gmail.com. 15. Division of Urologic Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 45 Francis Street, ASB II-3, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. jeswara@partners.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The surgical correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is indicated to prevent progression to chronic renal insufficiency. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become increasingly popular as an approach to UPJO correction. We compared the perioperative outcomes between minimally invasive (MIP) and open pyeloplasty (OP) in the adult population. METHODS: The current study was performed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Patients were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes for pyeloplasty between 2005 and 2012, and were stratified according to either MIS or open approach. Patients with a diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of the kidney were excluded. Following exclusions, 593 patients remained for analysis. Primary outcomes of interest were overall perioperative complications, need for transfusions, re-intervention rate, prolonged operation time (pOT), prolonged length of stay (pLOS), readmission and mortality within 30 days of surgery. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the association between preoperative outcomes and surgical approach. RESULTS: In this study, 423 (71.3 %) patients underwent MIP and 170 (28.7 %) underwent OP. Patients who underwent MIP had a decreased risk of wound [Odds ratio (OR) 0.06, p < 0.009] and overall complications (OR 0.21, p < 0.001), transfusions (OR 0.04, p = 0.004) and pLOS [pLOS (OR 0.08, p < 0.001)]. Conversely, MIP was associated with an increased likelihood of pOT (OR 2.26, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Adults with UPJO undergoing MIP have a lower risk of overall complications, transfusions and pLOS compared to OP. Further studies are needed to determine whether these benefits offset the increase in expenditures, related to longer operative time and costs of disposables.
PURPOSE: The surgical correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is indicated to prevent progression to chronic renal insufficiency. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become increasingly popular as an approach to UPJO correction. We compared the perioperative outcomes between minimally invasive (MIP) and open pyeloplasty (OP) in the adult population. METHODS: The current study was performed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Patients were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes for pyeloplasty between 2005 and 2012, and were stratified according to either MIS or open approach. Patients with a diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of the kidney were excluded. Following exclusions, 593 patients remained for analysis. Primary outcomes of interest were overall perioperative complications, need for transfusions, re-intervention rate, prolonged operation time (pOT), prolonged length of stay (pLOS), readmission and mortality within 30 days of surgery. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the association between preoperative outcomes and surgical approach. RESULTS: In this study, 423 (71.3 %) patients underwent MIP and 170 (28.7 %) underwent OP. Patients who underwent MIP had a decreased risk of wound [Odds ratio (OR) 0.06, p < 0.009] and overall complications (OR 0.21, p < 0.001), transfusions (OR 0.04, p = 0.004) and pLOS [pLOS (OR 0.08, p < 0.001)]. Conversely, MIP was associated with an increased likelihood of pOT (OR 2.26, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Adults with UPJO undergoing MIP have a lower risk of overall complications, transfusions and pLOS compared to OP. Further studies are needed to determine whether these benefits offset the increase in expenditures, related to longer operative time and costs of disposables.
Authors: Costas D Lallas; Raymond W Pak; Christopher Pagnani; Scott G Hubosky; Brent V Yanke; Frank X Keeley; Demetrius H Bagley Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-03-05 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Shyam Sukumar; Maxine Sun; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Ariella A Friedman; Felix K Chun; Jesse Sammon; Khurshid R Ghani; Praful Ravi; Marco Bianchi; Wooju Jeong; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jens Hansen; James O Peabody; Jack S Elder; Mani Menon; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Giorgio Gandaglia; Khurshid R Ghani; Akshay Sood; Jessica R Meyers; Jesse D Sammon; Marianne Schmid; Briony Varda; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi; Maxine Sun; Mani Menon; Adam S Kibel; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Elizabeth D Hermsen; Tim Hinze; Harlan Sayles; Lee Sholtz; Mark E Rupp Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Annemarie Uhlig; Johannes Uhlig; Lutz Trojan; Marc Hinterthaner; Alexander von Hammerstein-Equord; Arne Strauss Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 2.264