Tudor Borza1, Bruce L Jacobs2, Jeffrey S Montgomery3, Alon Z Weizer3, Todd M Morgan3, Khaled S Hafez3, Cheryl T Lee3, Benjamin Y Li4, Hye Sung Min4, Chang He4, Scott M Gilbert5, Jonathan E Helm6, Mariel S Lavieri7, Brent K Hollenbeck8, Ted A Skolarus9. 1. Division of Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Dow Division for Urologic Health Service Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: tborza@med.umich.edu. 2. Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. Dow Division for Urologic Health Service Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 4. Division of Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 5. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL. 6. Indiana University Kelley School of Business, Operations, and Decision Technologies, Bloomington, IN. 7. Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 8. Division of Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Dow Division for Urologic Health Service Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 9. Division of Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Dow Division for Urologic Health Service Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; VA Health Services Research & Development, Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To inform whether readmission reduction strategies should consider surgical approach, we examined readmission differences between open and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) using population-based data. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent cystectomy between January 2010 and September 2013 based on International Classification of Diseases-9th edition codes and administrative claims from a large, national US health insurer (Clinformatics Data Mart Database, OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, MN). We assessed post-discharge health system utilization and tested for differences in readmissions after the 2 surgical approaches. RESULTS: We identified 935 patients treated with cystectomy: open = 785 (84%) and RARC = 150 (16%). Patients undergoing RARC were slightly older, male, had more ileal conduit urinary reconstruction, and less need for intensive care. Index length of stay was shorter for RARC than for open surgery (7 days vs 8 days, P < .001). However, we found no differences in 30-day readmission rates (24% open vs 29% RARC, P = .26) or other readmission parameters, including readmission length of stay (5 days open vs 4 days RARC, P = .32), emergency department use (22% open vs 24% RARC, P = .86), reasons for readmission, or timing of first outpatient visits (11.5 days open vs 9 days RARC, P = .41). For both approaches, the majority of patients were readmitted within 2 weeks. CONCLUSION: The surgical approach to cystectomy does not appear to impact readmissions. Strategies to reduce the readmission burden after cystectomy do not need to consider surgical approach but should focus on timing of medical contacts.
OBJECTIVE: To inform whether readmission reduction strategies should consider surgical approach, we examined readmission differences between open and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) using population-based data. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent cystectomy between January 2010 and September 2013 based on International Classification of Diseases-9th edition codes and administrative claims from a large, national US health insurer (Clinformatics Data Mart Database, OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, MN). We assessed post-discharge health system utilization and tested for differences in readmissions after the 2 surgical approaches. RESULTS: We identified 935 patients treated with cystectomy: open = 785 (84%) and RARC = 150 (16%). Patients undergoing RARC were slightly older, male, had more ileal conduit urinary reconstruction, and less need for intensive care. Index length of stay was shorter for RARC than for open surgery (7 days vs 8 days, P < .001). However, we found no differences in 30-day readmission rates (24% open vs 29% RARC, P = .26) or other readmission parameters, including readmission length of stay (5 days open vs 4 days RARC, P = .32), emergency department use (22% open vs 24% RARC, P = .86), reasons for readmission, or timing of first outpatient visits (11.5 days open vs 9 days RARC, P = .41). For both approaches, the majority of patients were readmitted within 2 weeks. CONCLUSION: The surgical approach to cystectomy does not appear to impact readmissions. Strategies to reduce the readmission burden after cystectomy do not need to consider surgical approach but should focus on timing of medical contacts.
Authors: Rachel M Clark; Whitfield B Growdon; Andrew Wiechert; David Boruta; Marcela Del Carmen; Anne Kathryn Goodman; Leslie Bradford; Alejandro Rauh-Hain; John O Schorge Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeffrey J Leow; Stephen W Reese; Wei Jiang; Stuart R Lipsitz; Joaquim Bellmunt; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Benjamin I Chung; Adam S Kibel; Steven L Chang Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew C James; Jason P Izard; Sarah K Holt; Joshua K Calvert; Jonathan L Wright; Michael P Porter; John L Gore Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-11-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Irina Yermilov; David Bentrem; Evan Sekeris; Sushma Jain; Melinda A Maggard; Clifford Y Ko; James S Tomlinson Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-11-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Peter S Kirk; Ted A Skolarus; Bruce L Jacobs; Yongmei Qin; Benjamin Li; Michael Sessine; Xiang Liu; Kevin Zhu; Scott M Gilbert; Brent K Hollenbeck; Ken Urish; Jonathan Helm; Mariel S Lavieri; Tudor Borza Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-08-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Katie S Murray; Megan Prunty; Alex Henderson; Tyler Haden; Naveen Pokala; Bin Ge; Mark Wakefield; Gregory F Petroski; David R Mehr; Robin L Kruse Journal: Urology Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Parth K Modi; Brent K Hollenbeck; Mary Oerline; Alon Z Weizer; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Andrew M Ryan; Chad Ellimoottil Journal: Urology Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Matthew S Lee; Brent K Hollenbeck; Mary K Oerline; Ted A Skolarus; Bruce L Jacobs; Rita Jen; Amy N Luckenbaugh; Vahakn Shahinian; Tudor Borza Journal: Urol Pract Date: 2018-10-07
Authors: Bhavan Prasad Rai; Jasper Bondad; Nikhil Vasdev; Jim Adshead; Tim Lane; Kamran Ahmed; Mohammed S Khan; Prokar Dasgupta; Khurshid Guru; Piotr L Chlosta; Omar M Aboumarzouk Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-24