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
  • [21] Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications
    Hu, Wei
    Tang, Jiandong
    Wu, Xianpei
    Zhang, Li
    Ke, Baoyi
    INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2016, 40 (09) : 1883 - 1890
  • [22] Instrumentation for minimally invasive surgery in pediatric urology
    Gobbi, Dalia
    Midrio, Paola
    Gamba, Piergiorgio
    TRANSLATIONAL PEDIATRICS, 2016, 5 (04): : 186 - 204
  • [23] Complications Associated with Posterior Approaches in Minimally Invasive Spine Decompression
    Stadler, James A., III
    Wong, Albert P.
    Graham, Randall B.
    Liu, John C.
    NEUROSURGERY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2014, 25 (02) : 233 - +
  • [24] Variation in the Utilization of Minimally Invasive Surgical Operations
    Kuo, Lindsay E.
    Murayama, Kenric
    Simmons, Kristina D.
    Kelz, Rachel R.
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2017, 265 (03) : 514 - 520
  • [25] Sociodemographic variation in the utilization of minimally invasive surgical approaches for pancreatic cancer
    Tran, Andy
    Zheng, Richard
    Johnston, Fabian
    He, Jin
    Burns, William R.
    Shubert, Christopher
    Lafaro, Kelly
    Burkhart, Richard A.
    HPB, 2024, 26 (10) : 1280 - 1290
  • [26] Advances and Trends in Pediatric Minimally Invasive Surgery
    Meinzer, Andreas
    Alkatout, Ibrahim
    Krebs, Thomas Franz
    Baastrup, Jonas
    Reischig, Katja
    Meiksans, Roberts
    Bergholz, Robert
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2020, 9 (12) : 1 - 22
  • [27] Minimally invasive surgical approach versus open procedure for pancreaticoduodenectomy A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Wang, Shunda
    Shi, Ning
    You, Lei
    Dai, Menghua
    Zhao, Yupei
    MEDICINE, 2017, 96 (50)
  • [28] Minimally Invasive Surgery in Pediatric Surgical Oncology
    Phelps, Hannah M.
    Lovvorn, Harold N., III
    CHILDREN-BASEL, 2018, 5 (12):
  • [29] Open versus minimally invasive ureteroneocystostomy: trends and outcomes in a NSQIP-P cohort
    Chalfant, Victor
    Riveros, Carlos
    Stec, Andrew A.
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2023, 17 (02) : 487 - 493
  • [30] Adrenal tumours: open surgery versus minimally invasive surgery
    Fiori, Cristian
    Checcucci, Enrico
    Amparore, Daniele
    Cattaneo, Giovanni
    Manfredi, Matteo
    Porpiglia, Francesco
    CURRENT OPINION IN ONCOLOGY, 2020, 32 (01) : 27 - 34