Parth K Modi1, Brent K Hollenbeck2, Mary Oerline3, Alon Z Weizer4, Jeffrey S Montgomery4, Samuel D Kaffenberger4, Andrew M Ryan5, Chad Ellimoottil3. 1. Department of Urology, Division of Urologic Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Urology, Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: pamodi@med.umich.edu. 2. Department of Urology, Division of Urologic Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Urology, Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Department of Urology, Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 4. Department of Urology, Division of Urologic Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 5. Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of the minimally invasive approach on spending and perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. In a randomized control trial conducted at high-volume centers, robotic, and open cystectomy were shown to have similar outcomes. However, because the majority of cystectomies are performed in low-volume centers, it is unknown whether these findings are broadly generalizable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified Medicare patients who underwentradical cystectomyfor bladder cancer between 2008 and 2015. We examined the length of stay, readmission rate, and 90-day spending after minimally invasive or open cystectomy. We used multiple regressions to estimate the association between minimally invasive surgery and the outcomes, accounting for patient, hospital, and surgeon factors that may influence these outcomes. RESULTS:Of 4760 patients, 693 (14.6%) underwent minimally invasive cystectomy and 4067 (85.4%) had an open approach. Minimally invasive cystectomy was associated with shorter length of stay (10.1 days vs 11.9 days, P <.001), but no difference in readmission rate (27.4% vs 26.8%, P = .77). Minimally invasive cystectomy was associated with lower adjusted 90-day episode spending ($34,369 vs $38,071, P <.001). CONCLUSION: In patients across diverse institutions in the United States, minimally invasive cystectomy was associated with a shorter length of stay than open cystectomy and reduced 90-day episode spending, but with no significant difference in readmission rate.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of the minimally invasive approach on spending and perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. In a randomized control trial conducted at high-volume centers, robotic, and open cystectomy were shown to have similar outcomes. However, because the majority of cystectomies are performed in low-volume centers, it is unknown whether these findings are broadly generalizable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified Medicare patients who underwent radical cystectomy for bladder cancer between 2008 and 2015. We examined the length of stay, readmission rate, and 90-day spending after minimally invasive or open cystectomy. We used multiple regressions to estimate the association between minimally invasive surgery and the outcomes, accounting for patient, hospital, and surgeon factors that may influence these outcomes. RESULTS: Of 4760 patients, 693 (14.6%) underwent minimally invasive cystectomy and 4067 (85.4%) had an open approach. Minimally invasive cystectomy was associated with shorter length of stay (10.1 days vs 11.9 days, P <.001), but no difference in readmission rate (27.4% vs 26.8%, P = .77). Minimally invasive cystectomy was associated with lower adjusted 90-day episode spending ($34,369 vs $38,071, P <.001). CONCLUSION: In patients across diverse institutions in the United States, minimally invasive cystectomy was associated with a shorter length of stay than open cystectomy and reduced 90-day episode spending, but with no significant difference in readmission rate.
Authors: M Francesca Monn; K Clint Cary; Hristos Z Kaimakliotis; Chandra K Flack; Michael O Koch Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 3.498
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: Sukhchain S Bansal; Tara Dogra; Peter W Smith; Maisarah Amran; Ishna Auluck; Maninder Bhambra; Manraj S Sura; Edward Rowe; Anthony Koupparis Journal: BJU Int Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Todd M Morgan; Daniel A Barocas; Kirk A Keegan; Michael S Cookson; Sam S Chang; Shenghua Ni; Peter E Clark; Joseph A Smith; David F Penson Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Muhammad Shamim Khan; Christine Gan; Kamran Ahmed; Ahmad Fahim Ismail; Jane Watkins; Jennifer A Summers; Janet L Peacock; Peter Rimington; Prokar Dasgupta Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mahmoud I Khalil; Ehab Eltahawy; Jonathan Bauer-Erickson; Ahmed Farouk; Sherif Mourad; Rodney Davis; Mohamed H Kamel Journal: Urol Ann Date: 2020-06-10
Authors: Lin Dong; Feng Xiaoli; Lu Ya; Wu Dan; Hu Jingwen; Liu Xun; Chen Shujin; Zhou Zhijun; Zhang Tian; Luo Hao; Yi Chuanlang; Chen Guangrong; Wang Xiaodong; Luo Gewen; Zhang Yichi; Cao Pei; Liu Yang; Wang Youliang Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2022-08-26 Impact factor: 1.817