Cost-Effectiveness of 90-day Single-use Flexible Cystoscope Trial: Single Center Micro-Costing Analysis and User Satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cost-effectiveness and user satisfaction of a single-use flexible cystoscope at a tertiary care center we conducted a 90-day trial. Single-use flexible cystoscope advancements have introduced alternative options to reusable scopes. However, there is a paucity of cost-effectiveness and provider satisfaction studies examining the implementation of a hospital-based transition to single-use cystoscopes. METHODS: Following institutional device-approval we initiated a 90-day trial period (November 1, 2020-January 29, 2021) where all flexible, transurethral, and percutaneous, urologic care was provided with a disposable AMBU aScope. We performed a micro-costing analysis examining payor per case cost of the reusable flexible cystoscope (including servicing and processing) to the disposable units. Provider surveys assessed visual quality, deflection, ease of working channel and overall satisfaction on a 10-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Over the 90-day period, we encountered 84 cases (78 operative, 5 inpatient, 1 emergency department) where flexible cystoscopy was required. One disposable flexible cystoscope was successfully used in 78 of 84 (93%) cases. Of the 6 failures, 2 were due to an inability to access a disposable scope/monitor. Per use cost of the reusable flexible cystoscope at our center was $272.41 versus $185.00 for the single use. Extrapolating our average case volume and conservative failure rate (3 single use failures/month, requiring reusable), transitioning to predominately single use scopes results in $39,142.84 annual cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: This single center 90-day trial of disposable flexible cystoscopy identified per-use costs to be less when a single-use flexible cystoscope was utilized at a high-volume tertiary care center.

Ambulatory Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy May Be Cost-Effective Compared to Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed the practice of medicine in America. During the March 2020 lockdown, elective cases were canceled to conserve hospital beds/resources resulting in financial losses for health systems and delayed surgical care. Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (aPCNL) has been shown to be safe and could be a strategy to ensure patients receive care that has been delayed, conserve hospital resources, and maximize cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the safety and cost-effectiveness of patients undergoing aPCNL against standard PCNL (sPCNL). Materials and Methods: Ninty-eight patients underwent PCNL at Indiana University Methodist Hospital, a tertiary referral center, by three expert surgeons from January 2020 to September 2020. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the 30-day rates of emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and complications between sPCNL and aPCNL. Secondary outcomes included cost analysis and stone-free rates (SFRs). Propensity score matching was performed to ensure the groups were balanced. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 using independent t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square analyses for categorical variables. Results: Ninety-eight patients underwent PCNL during the study period (sPCNL = 75 and aPCNL = 23). After propensity score matching, 42 patients were available for comparison (sPCNL = 19 and aPCNL = 23). We found no difference in 30-day ED visits, readmissions, or complications between the two groups. aPCNL resulted in cost savings of $5327 ± 442 per case. SFRs were higher for aPCNL compared with sPCNL. Conclusions: aPCNL appears safe to perform and does not have a higher rate of ED visits or readmissions compared with sPCNL. aPCNL may also be cost-effective compared with sPCNL.

Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate: What is the True Rate of Postoperative Opioid Use?

OBJECTIVES: To determine if patients were obtaining opioids after HoLEP from other sources - despite our opioid-free postoperative pathway - we utilized a national prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) to review all patients who underwent HoLEP at our institution. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all HoLEPs completed by two fellowship-trained surgeons. We utilized a national PDMP to determine the true rate of postoperative opioid use. The primary outcome was filling of an opioid prescription within 31 postoperative days. Student t-tests and chi-square tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively. RESULTS: From July 2018-July 2020, 284 men underwent HoLEP. Despite our opioid-free pathway, 35 men (12.4%) received postoperative opioids. Unfortunately, 41.2% of opioids were prescribed by our inpatient physician assistant on his own accord. To prevent confounding, these patients were excluded from primary analyses. Thus, only 7.4% of patients received postoperative opioids. On univariate analysis, surgeon experience, chronic opioid use, any opioid exposure, benzodiazepine use, and chronic pain were associated with postoperative opioid use. On multivariate analysis, only preoperative opioid exposure (OR 41.9, P = 0.0383) was identified as a significant variable. CONCLUSION: 92.6% of patients did not obtain postoperative opioids on our opioid-free post-HoLEP pathway, but 7.4% of patients did obtain opioids from outside sources. Proper education of the surgical team is key to prevent inappropriate opioid prescribing. On multivariate analysis, we identified that any preoperative opioid exposure was associated with an increased risk of obtaining postoperative opioids.

Opioid Free Ureteroscopy: What is the True Failure Rate?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the true failure rate of opioid free ureteroscopy (OF-URS) and rates of new-persistent opioid use utilizing a national prescription drug monitoring program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We identified 239 patients utilizing our retrospective stone database who underwent OF-URS from Februrary 2018-March 2020. In Feb 2018, we initiated a OF-URS pathway (diclofenac, tamsulosin, acetaminophen, pyridium and oxybutynin). Patients who had a contraindication to NSAIDs were excluded from primary analyses. A prescription drug monitoring program was then utilized to determine the number of patients who failed OF-URS (defined as receipt of an opioid within 31 days of surgery) as well as rates of new-persistent opioid use (defined as receipt of opioid 91-180 days after surgery). All statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4. Tests were 2-sided and statistical significance was set at P<0.05. RESULTS: We found a OF-URS failure rate of 16.6% and 14.0% in the total and opioid naïve cohorts, respectively. Rates of new-persistent opioid use were 0.9% and 1.2%, respectively (lower than published expected rate of ~6% after URS with postoperative opioids). 91% of patients obtained opioid from alternative sources. Uni/multivariate analyses were performed for both cohorts. In the total cohort, benzodiazepine users had a lower risk of OF-URS failure on multivariate analysis. No variables were associated with OF-URS failure in the opioid naïve cohort. CONCLUSION: The true failure rate of OF-URS is higher than previously thought at 16.6% and 14.0%. However, efforts to reduce opioid prescriptions with OF-URS pathways have successfully reduced new-persistent opioid use.

A Cost Comparison of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate with and without Moses™.

INTRODUCTION: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a size-independent treatment option for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. HoLEP has been shown to have excellent improvements in prostate symptom scores and maximum flow rates that have been durable for 2 decades. However, the steep learning curve associated with HoLEP has prevented its widespread adoption. New advancements in lasers, specifically the Moses™ pulse-modulation technology, have resulted in improvements in hemostasis and achieving same-day discharges and catheter removals. We aimed to perform a cost-comparison to analyze if Moses-augmented HoLEP (m-HoLEP) resulted in cost-savings. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of a single expert surgeon's experience from May 2018 to November 2020, comparing m-HoLEP with HoLEP. Perioperative and postoperative variables were abstracted from the medical record. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using SAS® 9.4. Two-sided significance was set at p <0.05. RESULTS: A total of 312 men underwent HoLEP during the study period (192 in m-HoLEP group and 120 in HoLEP group). The m-HoLEP group had more same-day discharges (p <0.001) and emergency department visits (6.3% vs 1.7%, p=0.0071). m-HoLEP resulted in hospital cost savings of $840 for the initial surgical episode (p=0.0297). When factoring in emergency department visits/readmissions, the cost savings decreased to $747 per case (p=0.0574). CONCLUSIONS: m-HoLEP was associated with same-day discharge and hospital cost savings of $840 for the initial surgical episode. Further study in other institutions with surgeons of varying experience levels will need to be performed to see if these findings can be replicated.

Direct to cystoscopy: A prospective quality assessment of patient preferences.

INTRODUCTION: Cystourethroscopy is one of the most common procedures performed by urologists in both office and operative settings. With the recent centralization of cystoscopy at our center, we looked to assess our current delivery model, to determine whether patients prefer their initial visit to be in cystoscopy or in the clinic, followed by a cystoscopy appointment later. METHODS: We administered 500 prospective questionnaires to adults undergoing cystoscopy by 14 urologists at our center in 2017. Patient demographics were collected, along with their questionnaire results that we compared to their urologist-reported indication, results, and plan. Our primary objective was to assess whether patients prefer to be seen direct to cystoscopy (DTC) vs. a clinic appointment (CA) before cystoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 500 questionnaires were analyzed, with 336/500 (67%) patients being male. Mean age was 66 years (21-93), with 30% under 60 years. Thirty-nine percent (n=193) were undergoing their first cystoscopy, with 85% preferring DTC. There was no difference in age, gender, first-time cystoscopy, or indication for cystoscopy when comparing those who preferred DTC vs. CA. Patients who had an accurate understanding of the indication for their cystoscopy had 6.23 times higher odds of preferring DTC (p<0.05). We also identified a deficiency in patient comprehension of cystoscopy results and followup plans. CONCLUSIONS: With limited health resources, a large patient catchment area, and the majority of patients preferring to be seen DTC, there is evidence to implement a default DTC approach to booking cystoscopy clinics.

Quality and cost assessment of Canadian Urological Association microscopic hematuria guidelines in clinical practice: Turning urine into gold.

INTRODUCTION: Asymptomatic microscopic hematuria (AMH) is defined in the Canadian Urological Association (CUA) guideline as >2 red blood cells (RBCs) per high-powered field (HPF). Our objective was to evaluate guideline adherence for AMH at our center. Secondarily, we aimed to identify areas of the guideline that can be optimized. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 875 consecutive adults referred to two urologists for hematuria between June 2010 and June 2016. Patient characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes were added to an encrypted Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database. Evaluation of microscopic hematuria reporting was performed by analyzing 681 urine samples reported as 1-5 RBC/HPF. Healthcare costs were obtained from Alberta Health Services (AHS), Data Integration and Management Repository (DIMR), and Alberta Society of Radiologists (ASR). RESULTS: Of the 875 patients referred with hematuria, 400 had AMH. Overall, 96.5% completed evaluation consistent with the CUA guideline. The incidence of pathology requiring surgical intervention was 21/400 (5%) with a 0.8% rate (3/400) of urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC) (non-invasive, low-grade). No malignancy was found in non-smokers with normal cytology, normal imaging and <50 RBC/HPF; 44% had AMH in the 1-5 RBCs/HPF range. Only 41% (279/681) of urine samples categorized as 1-5 RBCs/ HPF had guideline-defined microscopic hematuria. By changing local microscopic hematuria reporting to differentiate 1-2 and 3-5 RBCs/HPF, we estimate $745 000 in annual savings. CONCLUSIONS: At our center, CUA AMH guideline adherence is high. We did not find malignancy in non-smokers with normal cytology, imaging and <50 RBC/HPF. We identified and changed regional microscopic hematuria reporting to fit the CUA definition, eliminating unnecessary investigations and healthcare costs.

The "Acute" Stone Clinic Effect: Improving Healthcare Delivery by Reorganizing Clinical Resources.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the time to specialist urologic consultation and definitive management after establishing a subspecialist administered acute stone clinic (ASC) for adults with symptomatic upper tract stones in a publically funded universal healthcare system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 337 adult referrals for stone management. Three distinct 9-week periods were assessed. Group 1 patients were seen/treated by their individual urologist before inception of a general urology emergency clinic (pre-EC). Group 2 patients were seen in a pooled EC and Group 3 patients were seen in the ASC. RESULTS: A total of 337 patients (75, pre-EC; 91, EC; 171, ASC) were reviewed. Mean time to consultation for pre-EC, EC, and ASC cohorts was 29, 7, and 7 days, respectively (p < 0.05), whereas loss to follow-up decreased from 13% to 5% (p < 0.05). On average, the number of patients seen per week increased from 9 to 20. Mean time to stone surgery from date of referral was 75 days pre-EC, 43 days EC, and 25 days ASC (p < 0.05). The percentage of patients undergoing surgery was between 59% and 63% per cohort; however, the number of patients increased from 5 to 11 per week. CONCLUSIONS: By reorganizing clinical resources, a dedicated ASC was able to increase patient capacity, reduce time to urologist consultation and reduce surgical wait times.