Kirsten L Simmons1, Jason C Chandrapal1, Steven Wolf2, Henry E Rice3, Elisabeth E Tracy3, Tamara Fitzgerald3, Gina-Maria Pomann2, Jonathan C Routh4. 1. Division of Urologic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Division of Pediatric Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Division of Urologic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA; Surgical Center for Outcomes Research, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: jonathan.routh@duke.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Minimally-invasive surgery (MIS) has been adopted slowly in pediatric oncology. We attempted to describe contemporary national trends in MIS use; we hypothesized that adolescents (who are more likely to have relatively small renal cell carcinomas) would have a higher proportion of MIS than younger children (who are more likely to have relatively large Wilms tumors) and that this relationship would vary by region. OBJECTIVE: To explore whether pediatric urologic oncology outcomes vary by patient age or by surgical technique. METHODS: We queried the 1998-2014 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and included encounters in children aged ≤ 18 y, ICD-9 diagnostic code for renal tumor, and procedure code for open or MIS partial or radical nephrectomy. All analyses used weighted descriptive statistics and outcomes are compared based on age group (</>10 y) or surgery type; Wald-Chi square test was used for differences in proportions and unadjusted weighted ANOVA was used to test for differences in means. RESULTS: 9259 weighted encounters were included; 91% were <10 years old and 50.7% were female. MIS surgery accounted for 1.8% of encounters; there was a difference in proportions by age group (1% <9 y vs. 9.9% >9 y, p < 0.01). The proportion of surgery type was similar across regions within age groups, however. Complications occurred in 13.3% of encounters; mean inpatient length of stay was 8.9 days (SD: 0.3); mean cost was $ 34,457.68 (SD: $1197.00). There was no evidence of a difference between surgery type and proportion of post-operative complications, mean inpatient length of stay or mean inpatient cost. DISCUSSION: The admission-based, retrospective design of NIS left us unable to assess long-term outcomes, repeated admissions, or to track a particular patient across time; this is particularly relevant for oncologic variables on interest such as tumor stage or event-free survival. We were similarly limited in evaluating the effect of pre-surgical referral patterns on patient distributions. CONCLUSION: In this preliminary descriptive analysis, MIS techniques were infrequently used in children, but there was a higher proportion of MIS use among adolescents. There were similar proportions of surgery type across geographic regions within the United States. Whether this infrequent usage is appropriate is as yet unclear given the lack of Level I evidence regarding the relative merits of MIS and open surgery for pediatric and adolescent renal tumors.
INTRODUCTION: Minimally-invasive surgery (MIS) has been adopted slowly in pediatric oncology. We attempted to describe contemporary national trends in MIS use; we hypothesized that adolescents (who are more likely to have relatively small renal cell carcinomas) would have a higher proportion of MIS than younger children (who are more likely to have relatively large Wilms tumors) and that this relationship would vary by region. OBJECTIVE: To explore whether pediatric urologic oncology outcomes vary by patient age or by surgical technique. METHODS: We queried the 1998-2014 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and included encounters in children aged ≤ 18 y, ICD-9 diagnostic code for renal tumor, and procedure code for open or MIS partial or radical nephrectomy. All analyses used weighted descriptive statistics and outcomes are compared based on age group (</>10 y) or surgery type; Wald-Chi square test was used for differences in proportions and unadjusted weighted ANOVA was used to test for differences in means. RESULTS: 9259 weighted encounters were included; 91% were <10 years old and 50.7% were female. MIS surgery accounted for 1.8% of encounters; there was a difference in proportions by age group (1% <9 y vs. 9.9% >9 y, p < 0.01). The proportion of surgery type was similar across regions within age groups, however. Complications occurred in 13.3% of encounters; mean inpatient length of stay was 8.9 days (SD: 0.3); mean cost was $ 34,457.68 (SD: $1197.00). There was no evidence of a difference between surgery type and proportion of post-operative complications, mean inpatient length of stay or mean inpatient cost. DISCUSSION: The admission-based, retrospective design of NIS left us unable to assess long-term outcomes, repeated admissions, or to track a particular patient across time; this is particularly relevant for oncologic variables on interest such as tumor stage or event-free survival. We were similarly limited in evaluating the effect of pre-surgical referral patterns on patient distributions. CONCLUSION: In this preliminary descriptive analysis, MIS techniques were infrequently used in children, but there was a higher proportion of MIS use among adolescents. There were similar proportions of surgery type across geographic regions within the United States. Whether this infrequent usage is appropriate is as yet unclear given the lack of Level I evidence regarding the relative merits of MIS and open surgery for pediatric and adolescent renal tumors.
Authors: Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink; Janna A Hol; Kathy Pritchard-Jones; Harm van Tinteren; Rhoikos Furtwängler; Arnauld C Verschuur; Gordan M Vujanic; Ivo Leuschner; Jesper Brok; Christian Rübe; Anne M Smets; Geert O Janssens; Jan Godzinski; Gema L Ramírez-Villar; Beatriz de Camargo; Heidi Segers; Paola Collini; Manfred Gessler; Christophe Bergeron; Filippo Spreafico; Norbert Graf Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Bruce L Jacobs; Rachana Seelam; Julie C Lai; Janet M Hanley; J Stuart Wolf; Brent K Hollenbeck; John M Hollingsworth; Andrew W Dick; Claude M Setodji; Christopher S Saigal Journal: J Endourol Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Giovannalberto Pini; Luigi Ascalone; Francesco Greco; Nasreldin Mohammed; Paolo Fornara Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ashley W Johnston; Steven Wolf; Muhammad H Alkazemi; Gina-Maria Pomann; Hadley Wood; John S Wiener; Jonathan C Routh Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 2.554