The impact of cannabis use disorder on urologic oncologic surgery morbidity, length of stay, and inpatient cost: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample from 2003 to 2014.

PURPOSE: This study examined the impact of cannabis use disorder (CUD) on inpatient morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and inpatient cost (IC) of patients undergoing urologic oncologic surgery. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2003 to 2014 was analyzed for patients undergoing prostatectomy, nephrectomy, or cystectomy (n = 1,612,743). CUD was identified using ICD-9 codes. Complex-survey procedures were used to compare patients with and without CUD. Inpatient major complications, high LOS (4th quartile), and high IC (4th quartile) were examined as endpoints. Univariable and multivariable analysis (MVA) were performed to compare groups. RESULTS: The incidence of CUD increased from 51 per 100,000 admissions in 2003 to 383 per 100,000 in 2014 (p < 0.001). Overall, 3,503 admissions had CUD. Patients with CUD were more frequently younger (50 vs. 61), male (86% vs. 78.4%), Black (21.7% vs. 9.2%), and had 1st quartile income (36.1% vs. 20.6%); all p < 0.001. CUD had no impact on any complication rates (all p > 0.05). However, CUD patients had higher LOS (3 vs. 2 days; p < 0.001) and IC ($15,609 vs. $12,415; p < 0.001). On MVA, CUD was not an independent predictor of major complications (p = 0.6). Conversely, CUD was associated with high LOS (odds ratio (OR) 1.31; 95% CI 1.08-1.59) and high IC (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.12-1.59), both p < 0.01. CONCLUSION: The incidence of CUD at the time of urologic oncologic surgery is increasing. Future research should look into the cause of our observed phenomena and how to decrease LOS and IC in CUD patients.

Time-Driven Activity-based Costing and Outcomes of Same-Day Discharge vs Inpatient Robotic Partial and Radical Nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes, total healthcare utilization, and cost savings for same-day discharge (SDD) vs inpatient robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy (RARN). METHODS: We compared 146 RAPNs and 65 RARNs consecutively performed as SDD (RAPN=21, RARN=9) vs inpatient (RAPN=125, RARN=56) from April 2015 to May 2023 at two academic medical centers. We collected baseline demographics, perioperative characteristics, and 30-day complications. We applied the Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing analysis to compare total costs of RAPN and PARN throughout the cycle of care, including inpatient vs SDD. RESULTS: Baseline demographics and comorbidities were similar between patients undergoing inpatient vs SDD RAPN and RARN. One Clavien-Dindo grade II complication (3.3%) requiring readmission due to wound infection for antibiotics occurred after SDD RAPN; no complications occurred after SDD RARN. Two unscheduled office or emergency department visits (6.7%) occurred after SDD RAPN for surgical-site infection and urinary retention. SDD vs inpatient RAPN and RARN demonstrated a $3091 (18%) and $4003 (25%) overall cost reduction, respectively. CONCLUSION: SDD RAPN and RARN result in cost savings of 18%-25% without a difference in complications, and thereby improves value-based care for appropriately selected patients.

Trends and Costs of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Kidney Cancer in the US: A Population-based Study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze temporal trends and costs associated with the use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for kidney cancer in the US over the past decade. To examine the impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) on perioperative outcomes. METHODS: The PearlDiver Mariner, a national database of insurance billing records, was queried for this retrospective observational cohort analysis. The MIS population was identified and stratified according to treatment modality, using International Classification of Diseases and current procedural terminology codes. SDOH were assessed using International Classification of Diseases codes. Negative binomial regression was used to evaluate the overall number of renal MIS and Cochran-Armitage tests to compare the utilization of different treatment modalities, over the study period. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified predictors of perioperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 80,821 MIS for kidney cancer were included. Minimally invasive partial nephrectomy adoption as a fraction of total MIS increased significantly (slope of regression line, reg. = 0.026, P <.001). Minimally invasive radical nephrectomy ($26.9k ± 40.9k) and renal ablation ($18.9k ± 31.6k) were the most expensive and cheapest procedures, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed in terms of number of complications (P = .06) and presence of SDOH (P = .07) among the treatment groups. At multivariable analysis, patients with SDOH undergoing minimally invasive radical nephrectomy had higher odds of perioperative complications, while renal ablation had a significantly lower probability of perioperative complications. CONCLUSION: This study describes the current management of kidney cancer in the US, offering a socioeconomic perspective on the impact of this disease in everyday clinical practice.

Outcomes and Cost Comparison of 3 Different Laparoscopic Approach for Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective, Single-Center, Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Analysis of 551 Cases.

BACKGROUND: At our institution, we switched from hand-assisted retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HRN) to hand-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HTN); we later switched to standard retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (SRN). This study was performed to evaluate outcomes and hospital costs among the 3 techniques. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, single-center, inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis study compared the outcomes among 551 cases of living donor kidney transplantation between 2014 and 2022. RESULTS: After the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, there were 114 cases in the HRN group, 204 cases in the HTN group, and 213 cases in the SRN group. Donor complication rates were lowest in the SRN group but did not differ between the HRN and HTN groups (1.1 vs 4.4 and 5.9%, P = .021). Donors in the SRN group had the lowest serum C-reactive protein concentrations on postoperative day 1 (4.3 vs 10.5 and 7.8 mg/dL, P < .001) and the shortest postoperative stay (4.3 vs 7.4 and 8.4 days, P < .001). Donors in the SRN group had the lowest total cost among the 3 groups (8868 vs 9709 and 10,592 USD, P < .0001). Donors in the SRN group also had the lowest costs in terms of "basic medical fees," "medication and injection fees," "Intraoperative drug and material costs," and "testing fees." Furthermore, the presence of complications was significantly correlated with higher total hospital costs (P < .001). CONCLUSION: SRN appeared to have the least invasive and complication, and a potential cost savings compared with the HRN and HTN.

A cost-effective technique for pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE: Compare two different techniques for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN), related to the operative costs and learning curve. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April/2000 and October/2003, 61 patients were submitted to LDN in 2 different reference centers in kidney transplantation. At center A (CA), 11 patients were operated by a pure transperitoneal approach, using Hem-O-Lokomicron clips for the renal pedicle control and the specimens were retrieved manually, without using endobags. At center B (CB), 50 patients were also operated by a pure transperitoneal approach, but the renal pedicles were controlled with endo-GIA appliers and the specimens were retrieved using endobags. RESULTS: Operative time (231 ± 39 min vs. 179 ± 30 min; p < 0.000), warm ischemia time (5.85 ± 2.85 min vs. 3.84 ± 3.84 min; p = 0.002) and blood loss (214 ± 98 mL vs. 141 ± 82 mL; p = 0.02) were statistically better in CB, when compared to CA. Discharge time was similar in both centers. One major complication was observed in both centers, leading to an open conversion in CA (9.1 percent). One donor death occurred in CB (2 percent). Regarding the recipients, no statistical difference was observed in all parameters analyzed. There was an economy of US$1.440 in each procedure performed in CA, when compared to CB. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the learning curve, the technique adopted by CA, showed no deleterious results to the donors and recipients when compared with the CB. On the other hand, this technique was cheaper than the technique performed in the CB, representing an attractive alternative for LDN, mainly in developing centers.