Christer Groeben1, Rainer Koch2, Martin Baunacke3, Manfred P Wirth3, Johannes Huber3. 1. Department of Urology, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. christer.groeben@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 2. Department of Medical Statistics and Biometry, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Outcomes of radical prostatectomy are prone to publication bias, because most of the data originated from highly specialized centers. We assessed in-hospital outcomes of all radical prostatectomies in Germany from 2006 to 2013 focusing on caseload volume, surgical approach, and certification status. METHODS: We analyzed the nationwide German hospital billing data covering 221,331 radical prostatectomies from 2006 to 2013. Outcomes were in-hospital mortality, surgical revision, and transfusion rates and the length of stay. Multivariate models described the impact of these factors. RESULTS: The yearly number of radical prostatectomies declined from 28,374 to 21,850. While shares of all other approaches decreased, shares for robot-assisted prostatectomy increased from 0.6 to 25.2%. Hospitals with ≥100 cases a year reported lower in-hospital mortality with 0.08 versus 0.17% for hospitals with <50 cases a year. On multivariate analysis, the odds for an individual death were doubled in hospitals with <50 cases a year. All other factors showed no significant impact on mortality. Concerning blood transfusion, the surgical approach was the strongest predictor with minimally invasive surgery (26% of the odds of conventional surgery) followed by caseload volume. Surgical revision was frequent in hospitals with lower rates of minimally invasive approaches (OR 1.6) and smaller caseloads (OR 1.4). Length of stay was reduced by 3 days for caseloads ≥200 a year, 2 days with minimally invasive approaches, and 1 day in certified prostate cancer centers. Lacking clinical information is a major limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Annual caseload volume of hospitals is the most important factor for improved in-hospital outcomes.
PURPOSE: Outcomes of radical prostatectomy are prone to publication bias, because most of the data originated from highly specialized centers. We assessed in-hospital outcomes of all radical prostatectomies in Germany from 2006 to 2013 focusing on caseload volume, surgical approach, and certification status. METHODS: We analyzed the nationwide German hospital billing data covering 221,331 radical prostatectomies from 2006 to 2013. Outcomes were in-hospital mortality, surgical revision, and transfusion rates and the length of stay. Multivariate models described the impact of these factors. RESULTS: The yearly number of radical prostatectomies declined from 28,374 to 21,850. While shares of all other approaches decreased, shares for robot-assisted prostatectomy increased from 0.6 to 25.2%. Hospitals with ≥100 cases a year reported lower in-hospital mortality with 0.08 versus 0.17% for hospitals with <50 cases a year. On multivariate analysis, the odds for an individual death were doubled in hospitals with <50 cases a year. All other factors showed no significant impact on mortality. Concerning blood transfusion, the surgical approach was the strongest predictor with minimally invasive surgery (26% of the odds of conventional surgery) followed by caseload volume. Surgical revision was frequent in hospitals with lower rates of minimally invasive approaches (OR 1.6) and smaller caseloads (OR 1.4). Length of stay was reduced by 3 days for caseloads ≥200 a year, 2 days with minimally invasive approaches, and 1 day in certified prostate cancer centers. Lacking clinical information is a major limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Annual caseload volume of hospitals is the most important factor for improved in-hospital outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Caseload; Health services research; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy; Robotics
Authors: John W Yaxley; Geoffrey D Coughlin; Suzanne K Chambers; Stefano Occhipinti; Hema Samaratunga; Leah Zajdlewicz; Nigel Dunglison; Rob Carter; Scott Williams; Diane J Payton; Joanna Perry-Keene; Martin F Lavin; Robert A Gardiner Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jesse Sammon; Maxine Sun; Praful Ravi; Khurshid R Ghani; Marco Bianchi; Wooju Jeong; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jens Hansen; Jan Schmitges; Claudio Jeldres; Craig G Rogers; James O Peabody; Francesco Montorsi; Mani Menon; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Eva Haglind; Stefan Carlsson; Johan Stranne; Anna Wallerstedt; Ulrica Wilderäng; Thordis Thorsteinsdottir; Mikael Lagerkvist; Jan-Erik Damber; Anders Bjartell; Jonas Hugosson; Peter Wiklund; Gunnar Steineck Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jim C Hu; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Michael J Barry; Anthony V D'Amico; Aaron C Weinberg; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Anna Wallerstedt; Stavros I Tyritzis; Thordis Thorsteinsdottir; Stefan Carlsson; Johan Stranne; Ove Gustafsson; Jonas Hugosson; Anders Bjartell; Ulrica Wilderäng; N Peter Wiklund; Gunnar Steineck; Eva Haglind Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-11 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Vincent Beck; Boris Schlenker; Annika Herlemann; Maria Apfelbeck; Alexander Buchner; Christian Gratzke; Christian G Stief; Stefan Tritschler Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ajay Aggarwal; Stéphanie A van der Geest; Daniel Lewis; Jan van der Meulen; Marco Varkevisser Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 4.452
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: Roman Herout; Martin Baunacke; Christer Groeben; Cem Aksoy; Björn Volkmer; Marcel Schmidt; Nicole Eisenmenger; Rainer Koch; Sven Oehlschläger; Christian Thomas; Johannes Huber Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-08-28 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Rebecka Arnsrud Godtman; Erik Persson; Walter Cazzaniga; Fredrik Sandin; Stefan Carlsson; Göran Ahlgren; Eva Johansson; David Robinsson; Jonas Hugosson; Pär Stattin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jae Heon Kim; So Young Kim; Seok-Joong Yun; Jae Il Chung; Hoon Choi; Ho Song Yu; Yun-Sok Ha; In-Chang Cho; Hyung Joon Kim; Hyun Chul Chung; Jun Sung Koh; Wun-Jae Kim; Jong-Hyock Park; Ji Youl Lee Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: Markus Maier; Anne-Karoline Ebert; Martin Baunacke; Christer Groeben; Nicole Eisenmenger; Christian Thomas; Johannes Huber Journal: Urologe A Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 0.639