Literature DB >> 28344019

Open versus minimally invasive surgical approaches in pediatric urology: Trends in utilization and complications.

Rohit Tejwani1, Brian J Young1, Hsin-Hsiao S Wang1, Steven Wolf2, J Todd Purves1, John S Wiener1, Jonathan C Routh3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques are anecdotally reported to be increasingly used, but little objective data supports this. Our objective was to assess trends in MIS utilization across various procedures in pediatric urology and to compare postoperative complication rates between MIS and open procedures.
METHODS: We analyzed the 1998-2012 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. We identified children (<18 years old) undergoing open and MIS inpatient procedures and any in-hospital post-operative complications that occurred during that postoperative hospitalization. We utilized propensity score matching and multivariable logistic regression to adjust for confounding factors.
RESULTS: We identified 163,838 weighted encounters in the "overall cohort," 70,273 of which were at centers performing more than five MIS procedures over the years studied. Use of MIS techniques increased significantly over time for several procedures, most prominently for nephrectomy (Fig.). The overall rate of complications was lower in patients undergoing MIS compared with open surgery (6% vs. 11%, p < 0.001). Specialized centers had a significantly lower overall rate of complications than unspecialized centers (9% vs. 12%, p < 0.001). Within specialized centers, MIS had lower complication rates than open procedures (7% vs. 9%, p < 0.001); this finding was consistent even after adjusting for other factors (OR 0.71, p = 0.02). DISCUSSION: Limitations include that these data may not be generalizable to encounters not in the sample pool. As a large, retrospective, administrative database, NIS may be affected by miscoding bias - rendering our analysis sensitive to the accuracy of procedure coding in NIS. Although the accuracy level of NIS is high for an administrative database, it is possible at least some portion of our cohort may be incorrectly coded. Further, the NSQIP complications we identified may represent associated comorbidities and not true postoperative complications, as NIS does not provide temporal relationships between different diagnosis codes. Despite these limitations, we note that the NIS database is rigorously monitored and audited for coding accuracy and, therefore, represents a reasonably reliable panorama of the characteristics of an inpatient surgical cohort. However, it is important to note that the choice of operative modality is, undoubtedly, multifactorial and patient/setting-specific.
CONCLUSIONS: There is increasing use of MIS for pediatric urology procedures, although utilization rates vary among procedures. MIS was associated with a lower postoperative complication rate than for open procedures. Higher-volume MIS centers have a lower complication rate than lower-volume centers.
Copyright © 2017 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complications; Laparoscopic surgery; Minimally invasive surgery; Pediatrics; Urology

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28344019      PMCID: PMC5483194          DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2017.01.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pediatr Urol        ISSN: 1477-5131            Impact factor:   1.830


  31 in total

1.  Open, laparoscopic, and robotic ureteroneocystotomy for benign and malignant ureteral lesions: a comparison of over 100 minimally invasive cases.

Authors:  Sammy E Elsamra; Nithin Theckumparampil; Bradley Garden; Manaf Alom; Nikhil Waingankar; David A Leavitt; Jessica Kreshover; Michael Schwartz; Louis R Kavoussi; Lee Richstone
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 2.  Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future.

Authors:  David B Camarillo; Thomas M Krummel; J Kenneth Salisbury
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.565

3.  Survey of urological laparoscopic practice patterns in the midwest.

Authors:  David S Wang; Howard N Winfield
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Patterns and predictors of laparoscopic complications in pediatric urology: the role of ongoing surgical volume and access techniques.

Authors:  Carlo C Passerotti; Hiep T Nguyen; Alan B Retik; Craig A Peters
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-06-12       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 5.  Laparoscopy in pediatric urology: too much of a good thing?

Authors:  A H Colodny
Journal:  Semin Pediatr Surg       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 2.754

6.  An economic evaluation of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair.

Authors:  K Lawrence; D McWhinnie; A Goodwin; A Gray; J Gordon; J Storie; J Britton; J Collin
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  1996-03

7.  Parent and patient perceptions of robotic vs open urological surgery scars in children.

Authors:  Joao A B A Barbosa; Ghassan Barayan; Chad M Gridley; Daniela C J Sanchez; Carlo C Passerotti; Constance S Houck; Hiep T Nguyen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 8.  Role of robotics for prostate cancer.

Authors:  T Casey McCullough; Eric Barret; Xavier Cathelineau; Francois Rozet; Marc Galiano; Guy Vallancien
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.309

9.  Increased pediatric sub-specialization is associated with decreased surgical complication rates for inpatient pediatric urology procedures.

Authors:  R Tejwani; H-H S Wang; B J Young; N H Greene; S Wolf; J S Wiener; J C Routh
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 1.830

10.  Predictors of laparoscopic complications after formal training in laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  W A See; C S Cooper; R J Fisher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-12-08       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  For Whom the Bubble Grows: Physical Principles of Bubble Nucleation and Dynamics in Histotripsy Ultrasound Therapy.

Authors:  Kenneth B Bader; Eli Vlaisavljevich; Adam D Maxwell
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2019-03-26       Impact factor: 2.998

2.  Robot-Assisted vs. Open Appendicovesicostomy in Pediatric Urology: A Systematic Review and Single-Center Case Series.

Authors:  Nikolai Juul; Emma Persad; Oliver Willacy; Jorgen Thorup; Magdalena Fossum; Susanne Reinhardt
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 3.569

3.  Open versus minimally-invasive surgical techniques in pediatric renal tumors: A population-level analysis of in-hospital outcomes.

Authors:  Kirsten L Simmons; Jason C Chandrapal; Steven Wolf; Henry E Rice; Elisabeth E Tracy; Tamara Fitzgerald; Gina-Maria Pomann; Jonathan C Routh
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 1.921

4.  Pediatric Challenges in Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation.

Authors:  Julien Grammens; Michal Yaela Schechter; Liesbeth Desender; Tom Claeys; Céline Sinatti; Johan VandeWalle; Frank Vermassen; Ann Raes; Caroline Vanpeteghem; Agnieszka Prytula; Mesrur Selçuk Silay; Alberto Breda; Karel Decaestecker; Anne-Françoise Spinoit
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2021-03-25

5.  Relative to open surgery, minimally-invasive renal and ureteral pediatric surgery offers no improvement in 30-day complications, yet requires longer operative time: Data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatrics.

Authors:  Marc Colaco; Austin Hester; William Visser; Alison Rasper; Ryan Terlecki
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2018-04-10
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.