Bruce L Jacobs1, Julie C Lai2, Rachana Seelam2, Janet M Hanley2, J Stuart Wolf3, Brent K Hollenbeck4,5, John M Hollingsworth4,6, Andrew W Dick2, Claude M Setodji2, Christopher S Saigal2,7. 1. 1 Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. 2 RAND Corporation , Santa Monica, California. 3. 3 Dell Medical School of the University of Texas , Austin, Texas. 4. 4 Department of Urology, Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. 5 Department of Urology, Division of Oncology, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. 6 Department of Urology, Division of Endourology, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, Michigan. 7. 7 Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California , Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction is a common condition that can be treated with open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty, and endopyelotomy. While all these treatments are effective, the extent to which they are used is unclear. We sought to examine the dissemination of these treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the MarketScan® database, we identified adults 18 to 64 years old who underwent treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction between 2002 and 2010. Our primary outcome was ureteropelvic junction obstruction treatment (i.e., open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty, endopyelotomy). We fit a multilevel multinomial logistic regression model accounting for patients nested within providers to examine several factors associated with treatment. RESULTS: Rates of minimally invasive pyeloplasty increased 10-fold, while rates of open pyeloplasty decreased by over 40%, and rates of endopyelotomy were relatively stable. Factors associated with receiving an open vs a minimally invasive pyeloplasty were largely similar. Compared with endopyelotomy, patients receiving minimally invasive pyeloplasty were less likely to be older (odds ratio [OR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95, 0.97) and live in the south (OR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33, 0.81) and west regions (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.33, 0.98) compared with the northeast and were more likely to live in metropolitan statistical areas (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.08, 2.13). CONCLUSIONS: Over this 9-year period, the landscape of ureteropelvic junction obstruction treatment has changed dramatically. Further research is needed to understand why geographic factors were associated with receiving a minimally invasive pyeloplasty or an endopyelotomy.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Ureteropelvic junction obstruction is a common condition that can be treated with open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty, and endopyelotomy. While all these treatments are effective, the extent to which they are used is unclear. We sought to examine the dissemination of these treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the MarketScan® database, we identified adults 18 to 64 years old who underwent treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction between 2002 and 2010. Our primary outcome was ureteropelvic junction obstruction treatment (i.e., open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty, endopyelotomy). We fit a multilevel multinomial logistic regression model accounting for patients nested within providers to examine several factors associated with treatment. RESULTS: Rates of minimally invasive pyeloplasty increased 10-fold, while rates of open pyeloplasty decreased by over 40%, and rates of endopyelotomy were relatively stable. Factors associated with receiving an open vs a minimally invasive pyeloplasty were largely similar. Compared with endopyelotomy, patients receiving minimally invasive pyeloplasty were less likely to be older (odds ratio [OR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95, 0.97) and live in the south (OR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33, 0.81) and west regions (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.33, 0.98) compared with the northeast and were more likely to live in metropolitan statistical areas (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.08, 2.13). CONCLUSIONS: Over this 9-year period, the landscape of ureteropelvic junction obstruction treatment has changed dramatically. Further research is needed to understand why geographic factors were associated with receiving a minimally invasive pyeloplasty or an endopyelotomy.
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: 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: Ganesh Sivarajan; Glen B Taksler; Dawn Walter; Cary P Gross; Raul E Sosa; Danil V Makarov Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jesús Moreno-Sierra; Ignacio Castillon-Vela; Elena Ortiz-Oshiro; Isabel Galante-Romo; Cristina Fernandez-Perez; Jose L Senovilla-Perez; Javier Casado-Varela; Hector Garde-Garcia; Cesar Chavez-Roa; Vicente Vera-Gonzalez Journal: Int J Med Robot Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 2.547
Authors: Jeffrey J Leow; Steven L Chang; Christian P Meyer; Ye Wang; Julian Hanske; Jesse D Sammon; Alexander P Cole; Mark A Preston; Prokar Dasgupta; Mani Menon; Benjamin I Chung; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 20.096