Jens Uwe Stolzenburg1, Iason Kyriazis2, Claus Fahlenbrach3, Christian Gilfrich4, Christian Günster5, Elke Jeschke5, Gralf Popken6, Lothar Weißbach7, Christoph von Zastrow8, Hanna Leicht5. 1. Department of Urology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 2. Department of Urology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. jkyriazis@gmail.com. 3. Federal Association of the Local Health Care Funds (AOK), Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, Klinikum St. Elisabeth Straubing, Straubing, Germany. 5. Research Institute of the Local Health Care Funds (AOK), Berlin, Germany. 6. Department of Urology, Klinikum Ernst von Bergmann, Potsdam, Germany. 7. Stiftung Männergesundheit, Berlin, Germany. 8. Medical Review Board of the Social Health Insurance Funds, Hannover, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we document trends in radical prostatectomy (RP) employment in Germany during the period 2005-2012 and compare the morbidity of open (ORP), laparoscopic and robotic-assisted RP based on nationwide administrative data of Allgemeine Ortskrankenkassen (AOK) German local healthcare funds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Administrative claims data of all AOK patients subjected to RP during 2005-2012 (57,156 cases) were used to evaluate the employment of minimally invasive RP (MIRP) procedures, pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) and nerve-sparing approaches during this period. In addition, data from the most recent three-year period of our dataset (2010-2012) were used to compare the morbidity among the different surgical approaches. Study end points comprised 30-day mortality, 30-day transfusion, 1-year reintervention and 30-day adverse events, as well as 1-year overall complications. RESULTS: A 20 % reduction in RP utilization from 2007 to 2012 was documented. ORP remained the predominant RP approach in Germany. MIRP approaches carried a lower risk of 30-day transfusions, 1-year reinterventions and 1-year overall complications than ORP when adjusting for confounding factors. PLND was associated with an increased risk of complications, while age in the highest quintile and the presence of comorbidities were independent risk factors for morbidity and mortality. Lack of pathological data was the main limitation of the study. CONCLUSIONS: RP utilization in Germany is dropping, but the use of MIRP has risen steadily during the years 2005-2012, which is expected to have a positive impact on the morbidity of the operation.
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we document trends in radical prostatectomy (RP) employment in Germany during the period 2005-2012 and compare the morbidity of open (ORP), laparoscopic and robotic-assisted RP based on nationwide administrative data of Allgemeine Ortskrankenkassen (AOK) German local healthcare funds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Administrative claims data of all AOK patients subjected to RP during 2005-2012 (57,156 cases) were used to evaluate the employment of minimally invasive RP (MIRP) procedures, pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) and nerve-sparing approaches during this period. In addition, data from the most recent three-year period of our dataset (2010-2012) were used to compare the morbidity among the different surgical approaches. Study end points comprised 30-day mortality, 30-day transfusion, 1-year reintervention and 30-day adverse events, as well as 1-year overall complications. RESULTS: A 20 % reduction in RP utilization from 2007 to 2012 was documented. ORP remained the predominant RP approach in Germany. MIRP approaches carried a lower risk of 30-day transfusions, 1-year reinterventions and 1-year overall complications than ORP when adjusting for confounding factors. PLND was associated with an increased risk of complications, while age in the highest quintile and the presence of comorbidities were independent risk factors for morbidity and mortality. Lack of pathological data was the main limitation of the study. CONCLUSIONS: RP utilization in Germany is dropping, but the use of MIRP has risen steadily during the years 2005-2012, which is expected to have a positive impact on the morbidity of the operation.
Authors: Francesco De Carlo; Francesco Celestino; Cristian Verri; Francesco Masedu; Emanuele Liberati; Savino Mauro Di Stasi Journal: Urol Int Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Keith J Kowalczyk; Jesse M Levy; Craig F Caplan; Stuart R Lipsitz; Hua-yin Yu; Xiangmei Gu; Jim C Hu Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew H Feifer; Elena B Elkin; William T Lowrance; Brian Denton; Lindsay Jacks; David S Yee; Jonathan A Coleman; Vincent P Laudone; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Karl Friedrich Kowalewski; Christian Tapking; Svetlana Hetjens; Felix Nickel; Philipp Mandel; Manuel Ritter; Maximilian Christian Kriegmair Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-11-25 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Rafael F Coelho; Mauricio D Cordeiro; Guilherme P Padovani; Rafael Localli; Limirio Fonseca; José Pontes; Giuliano B Guglielmetti; Miguel Srougi; William Carlos Nahas Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2018 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.541