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

被引:11
|
作者
Tejwani, Rohit [1 ]
Young, Brian J. [1 ]
Wang, Hsin-Hsiao S. [1 ]
Wolf, Steven [2 ]
Purves, J. Todd [1 ]
Wiener, John S. [1 ]
Routh, Jonathan C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Div Urol Surg, DUMC 3831, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[2] Duke Univ, Dept Biostat & Bioinformat, Durham, NC USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Urology; Pediatrics; Laparoscopic surgery; Minimally invasive surgery; Complications; PRACTICE PATTERNS; ROBOTIC SURGERY; LAPAROSCOPIC COMPLICATIONS; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; CHILDREN; PREDICTORS; NEPHRECTOMY; EXPERIENCE; OUTCOMES; TUMORS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jpurol.2017.01.013
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:283.e1 / 283.e9
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Microperforations of surgical gloves in urology: minimally invasive versus open surgeries
    Feng, Tom
    Yohannan, Jithin
    Gupta, Angela
    Hyndman, Matthew E.
    Allaf, Mohammad
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2011, 18 (02) : 5615 - 5618
  • [2] "Open" minimally invasive surgery in pediatric urology
    Hidalgo-Tamola, Josephine
    Shnorhavorian, Margarett
    Koyle, Martin A.
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGY, 2009, 5 (03) : 221 - 227
  • [3] Surgical Case Volume in Canadian Urology Residency: A Comparison of Trends in Open and Minimally Invasive Surgical Experience
    Mamut, Adiel E.
    Afshar, Kourosh
    Mickelson, Jennifer J.
    MacNeily, Andrew E.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2011, 25 (06) : 1063 - 1067
  • [4] A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF COMPLICATIONS IN MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY IN PEDIATRIC UROLOGY
    Aksenov, Leonid
    Granberg, Candace
    Gargollo, Patricio
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 201 (04): : E910 - E911
  • [5] Open Versus Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Trends of Utilization and Associated Outcomes in England
    Lazzarino, Antonio Ivan
    Nagpal, Kamal
    Bottle, Alex
    Faiz, Omar
    Moorthy, Krishna
    Aylin, Paul
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2010, 252 (02) : 292 - 298
  • [6] Minimally invasive approaches in urology
    Steiner, MS
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1998, 16 (06) : 365 - 366
  • [7] Minimally invasive approaches in urology
    Mitchell S. Steiner
    World Journal of Urology, 1998, 16 : 365 - 366
  • [8] Surgical Complications Requiring Intervention in Open versus Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy
    Haeuser, Lorine
    Reese, Stephen W.
    Paciotti, Marco
    Noldus, Joachim
    Brovman, Ethan Y.
    Urman, Richard D.
    Cone, Eugene B.
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2022, 106 (01) : 51 - 55
  • [9] Re: Microperforations of Surgical Gloves in Urology: Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgeries Editorial Comment
    Babayan, Richard K.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2011, 186 (06): : 2267 - 2267
  • [10] Intraoperative and postoperative complications in the surgical treatment of craniosynostosis: minimally invasive versus open surgical procedures
    Arts, Sebastian
    Delye, Hans
    van Lindert, Erik J.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-PEDIATRICS, 2018, 21 (02) : 112 - 118