Trends in the Treatment of Adults with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction

Abstract

Background and Purpose:

Minimally invasive pyeloplasty is an effective treatment for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction that offers quicker convalescence than open pyeloplasty. Technical challenges, however, may have limited its dissemination. We examined population trends and determinants of surgical options for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Patients and Methods:

Using the State Inpatient and Ambulatory Surgery Databases for Florida, we identified adults who underwent ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair between 2001 and 2009. After determining the surgical approach (minimally invasive pyeloplasty, open pyeloplasty, or endopyelotomy), we estimated annual utilization rates and the effects of patient, surgeon, and hospital predictors on surgery type, using multilevel multinomial logistic regression.

Results:

Rates of minimally invasive pyeloplasty increased 360% (P for monotonic trend < 0.01), while rates of open pyeloplasty decreased 56% (P<0.01). Rates of endopyelotomy were substantially higher and remained relatively stable (P=0.27). Compared with open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty was used more commonly among patients with private insurance (odds ratio [OR] 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2–2.3), those treated at teaching hospitals (OR 1.6; CI 1.0–2.6), and those treated by high-volume surgeons (OR 2.9; CI 2.0–4.2). Its use was less frequent among patients with multiple comorbidities (OR 0.53; CI 0.37–0.76). Similar associations were observed when comparing receipt of minimally invasive pyeloplasty with endopyelotomy; however, patients who underwent endopyelotomy were older.

Conclusions:

The use of minimally invasive pyeloplasty has dramatically increased, largely replacing open pyeloplasty, while the use of endopyelotomy, albeit significantly more common than the other approaches, has remained stable. The surgical approach is influenced by several patient, surgeon, and hospital factors.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bansal

, Gupta

, Mongha

et al. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: Comparison of two surgical approaches—a single centre experience of three years. J Minim Access Surg, 2008; 4:76–79.

Bonnard

, Fouquet

, Carricaburu

et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. J Urol, 2005; 173:1710–1713.

Klingler

, Remzi

, Janetschek

et al. Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol, 2003; 44:340–345.

Siqueira

Jr , Nadu

, Kuo

et al. Laparoscopic treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology, 2002; 60:973–978.

Yanke

, Lallas

, Pagnani

et al. The minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A review of our experience during the last decade. J Urol, 2008; 180:1397–1402.

Marcovich

, Jacobson

, Aldana

et al. Practice trends in contemporary management of adult ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology, 2003; 62:22–26.

Kim

, Hollowell

, Patel

et al. Use of new technology in endourology and laparoscopy by american urologists: Internet and postal survey. Urology, 2000; 56:760–765.

Tan

, Rastinehad

, Marcovich

et al. Trends in ureteropelvic junction obstruction management among urologists in the United States. Urology, 2005; 65:260–264.

Passerotti

, Passerotti

, Dall'Oglio

et al. Comparing the quality of the suture anastomosis and the learning curves associated with performing open, freehand, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in a swine animal model. J Am Coll Surg, 2009; 208:576–586.

10.

Makarov

, Yu

, Desai

et al. The association between diffusion of the surgical robot and radical prostatectomy rates. Med Care, 2011; 49:333–339.

11.

Hollingsworth

, Krein

, Dunn

et al. Understanding variation in the adoption of a new technology in surgery. Med Care, 2008; 46:366–371.

12.

Miller

, Saigal

, Banerjee

et al. Diffusion of surgical innovation among patients with kidney cancer. Cancer, 2008; 112:1708–1717.

13.

HCUP State Inpatient Databases (SID). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). 2001–2009. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD. www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/sidoverview.jsp. 2012 October 9.

14.

HCUP State Ambulatory Surgery Databases (SASD). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). 2001–2009. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/sasdoverview.jsp. 2012 October 9.

15.

Table 1. Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010 (ST-EST00INT-01) U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. http://www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/state/state2010.html. 2011 December 20.

16.

Strope

, Ye

, Hollingsworth

et al.

Weekend admission and treatment of patients with renal colic: A case of avoidable variation?

Urology, 2009; 73:720–724.

17.

Miller

, Wei

, Dunn

, Hollenbeck

. Trends in the diffusion of laparoscopic nephrectomy. JAMA, 2006; 295:2480–2482.

18.

Trinh

, Bianchi

, Sun

et al. Discharge patterns after radical prostatectomy in the United States of America. Urol Oncol, 2011Nov 17. Epub ahead of print.

19.

Allison

. Logistic Regression Using SAS: Theory and Application. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc, 1999.

20.

Diez Roux

, Merkin

, Arnett

et al. Neighborhood of residence and incidence of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med, 2001; 345:99–106.

21.

Deyo

, Cherkin

, Ciol

. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol, 1992; 45:613–619.

22.

Brooks

, Kavoussi

, Preminger

et al. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology, 1995; 46:791–795.

23.

Duchene

, Moinzadeh

, Gill

et al. Survey of residency training in laparoscopic and robotic surgery. J Urol, 2006; 176:2158–2167.

24.

Braga

, Pace

, DeMaria

, Lorenzo

. Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur Urol, 2009; 56:848–857.

25.

Lotan

, Bolenz

, Gupta

et al. The effect of the approach to radical prostatectomy on the profitability of hospitals and surgeons. BJU Int, 2010; 105:1531–1535.

26.

Richstone

, Kavoussi

. Barriers to the diffusion of advanced surgical techniques. Cancer, 2008; 112:1646–1649.

27.

Tan

, Ye

, Roberts

, Wolf

. Failure after laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Prevention and management. J Endourol, 2011; 25:1457–1462.

28.

Gögüs

, Karamürsel

, Tokatli

et al. Long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty in 180 adults in the era of endourologic procedures. Urol Int, 2004; 73:11–14.