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
  • [31] Comparison of surgical outcomes between open and robot-assisted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy
    Kim, Hyeong Seok
    Han, Youngmin
    Kang, Jae Seung
    Kim, Hongbeom
    Kim, Jae Ri
    Koon, Wooil
    Kim, Sun-Whe
    Jang, Jin-Young
    JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES, 2018, 25 (02) : 142 - 149
  • [32] Surgical Training: the European Minimally Invasive Skills Education Model in Urology
    Van Gysel, Emile
    Biyani, Chandra Shekhar
    Van Cleynenbreugel, Ben
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 84 (SUPPL 1) : 286 - 292
  • [33] Current Trends in Pediatric Minimally Invasive Urologic Surgery
    Lee, Dennis J.
    Kim, Philip H.
    Koh, Chester J.
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 51 (02) : 80 - 87
  • [34] A Systematic Review Comparing the Surgical Outcomes of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Surgery for Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair
    Quigley, Conall P.
    Folaranmi, Semiu E.
    JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2023, 33 (02): : 211 - 219
  • [35] Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications
    Wei Hu
    Jiandong Tang
    Xianpei Wu
    Li Zhang
    Baoyi Ke
    International Orthopaedics, 2016, 40 : 1883 - 1890
  • [36] Toward effective pediatric minimally invasive surgical simulation
    Hamilton, Joshua M.
    Kahol, Kanav
    Vankipuram, Mithra
    Ashby, Aaron
    Notrica, David M.
    Ferrara, John J.
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY, 2011, 46 (01) : 138 - 144
  • [37] The impact of minimally invasive surgical approaches on surgical-site infections
    Sweitzer, Stephanie F.
    Sickbert-Bennett, Emily E.
    Seidelman, Jessica
    Anderson, Deverick J.
    Lim, Moe R.
    Weber, David J.
    INFECTION CONTROL & HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2024, 45 (05) : 557 - 561
  • [38] Minimally invasive versus open laminotomy
    Tan, Lee A.
    Kasliwal, Manish K.
    Fessler, Richard G.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2014, 14 (06) : 1081 - 1082
  • [39] Open Versus Minimally Invasive Emergent Colectomy for Diverticulitis
    Le, Nguyen K.
    Cho, Nam Yong
    Mallick, Saad
    Chervu, Nikhil
    Kim, Shineui
    Sakowitz, Sara
    Benharash, Peyman
    Lee, Hanjoo
    AMERICAN SURGEON, 2024, 90 (10) : 2560 - 2569
  • [40] The radius surgical system - A new device for complex minimally invasive procedures in urology?
    Frede, Thomas
    Hammady, Ahmed
    Klein, Jan
    Teber, Dogu
    Inaki, Noriyuki
    Waseda, Masahiro
    Buess, Gerhard
    Rassweiler, Jens
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2007, 51 (04) : 1015 - 1022