Biliary Enteric Reconstruction After Biliary Injury: Delayed Repair Is More Costly Than Early Repair.

BACKGROUND: Bile duct injury (BDI) during cholecystectomy requiring biliary enteric reconstruction (BER) is associated with increased risk of postoperative mortality and substantive increases in costs of care. The impact of the timing of repair on overall costs of care is poorly understood. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Florida State databases (2006-2015) were queried to identify patients undergoing BER within 1-y of cholecystectomy performed for benign biliary disease. Patients were then categorized by the time interval between cholecystectomy to BER: early (≤3 d), intermediate (4 d to 6 wk), or delayed (>6 wk). By repair timing strategy, 1-y outcomes were aggregated, including charges, inpatient costs, aggregate length of stay, and inpatient mortality. RESULTS: Of 563,887 patients undergoing cholecystectomy, 1168 required a BER (0.21%) within 1-y of cholecystectomy. Early BER was performed in 560 patients (47.9%), intermediate BER in 439 patients (37.6%), and delayed BER in 169 (14.5%) patients. On multivariable analysis adjusting for patient, procedure, and facility factors, intermediate BER demonstrated an increased risk of mortality (odds ratio 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-3.56) and increased aggregate inpatient cost (+$12,472; 95% CI: $6421-$18,524) relative to early BER. There was no notable difference in adjusted risk of inpatient mortality between the early and delayed BER cohorts (odds ratio 0.90; 95% CI: 0.32-1.25), but delayed BER was associated with increased aggregate inpatient costs (+$45,111; 95% CI: $36,813-$53,409). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with delayed BER, early repair was associated with shorter aggregate inpatient hospitalization without increased postoperative mortality. Intermediate timing of repair is associated with increased costs and risk of mortality.

Penile Prosthesis Implantation and Timing Disparities After Radical Prostatectomy: Results From a Statewide Claims Database.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) after radical prostatectomy (RP) improve with conservative therapy but some do not; penile prosthesis implantation rates have been sparsely reported, and have used nonrepresentative data sets. AIM: To characterize rates and timing of penile prosthesis implantation after RP and to identify predictors of implantation using a more representative data set. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Ambulatory Surgery databases for Florida from 2006 to 2015 were used. Patients undergoing RP (2006-2012) were tracked longitudinally for penile prosthesis implantation. Patient and clinical data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was risk-adjusted predictors of prosthesis implantation, and the secondary outcome was predictors of the highest quartile of time between RP and penile prosthesis. RESULTS: Of 29,288 men who had RP, 1,449 (4.9%) patients underwent subsequent prosthesis. The mean time from RP to prosthesis was 2.6 years (median: 2.1; interquartile range [IQR]: 1.2-3.5). Adjusted predictors of prosthesis implantation included open RP (odds ratio [OR]: 1.5, P < .01), African American race (OR: 1.7, P < .01) or Hispanic ethnicity (OR: 3.2, P < .01), and Medicare (OR: 1.4, P < .01) insurance. Oler patients (age >70 years; OR: 0.7, P < .01) and those from the highest income quartile relative to the lowest (OR: 0.8, P < .05) were less likely to be implanted. Adjusted predictors of longer RP-to-implantation time (highest quartile: median: 4.7 years; IQR: 3.9-6.0 years) included open RP (OR: 1.78, P < .01), laparoscopic RP (OR: 4.67, P < .01), Medicaid (OR: 3.03, P < .05), private insurance (OR: 2.57, P < .01), and being in the highest income quartile (OR: 2.52, P < .01). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest ED treatment healthcare disparities meriting further investigation; upfront counseling on all ED treatment modalities and close monitoring for conservative treatment failure may reduce lost quality of life years. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its use of administrative data, which relies on accurate coding and lacks data on ED questionnaires/prior treatments, patient-level cost, and oncologic outcomes. Quartile-based analysis of income and time between RP and prosthesis limits the conclusions that can be drawn. CONCLUSION: Less than 5% of post-RP patients undergo penile prosthesis implantation, with open RP, Medicare, African American race, and Hispanic ethnicity predicting post-RP implantation; living in the wealthiest residential areas predicts lower likelihood of implantation compared to the least wealthy areas. Patients with the longest time between RP and prosthesis are more likely to live in the wealthiest areas or have undergone open/laparoscopic RP relative to robotic RP. Bajic P, Patel PM, Nelson MH, et al. Penile Prosthesis Implantation and Timing Disparities After Radical Prostatectomy: Results From a Statewide Claims Database. J Sex Med 2020;17:1175-1181.

Socioeconomic and patient-related factors for the management of male urethral stricture disease.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the socioeconomic and patient factors that influence the utilization of urethroplasty and location of management in the treatment of male urethral stricture disease. METHODS: A retrospective review using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases for California and Florida was performed. Adult men with a diagnosis of urethral stricture who underwent treatment with urethroplasty or endoscopic dilation/urethrotomy between 2007 and 2011 in California and 2009 and 2014 in Florida were identified by ICD-9 or CPT codes. Patients were categorized based on whether they had a urethroplasty or serial dilations/urethrotomies. Patients were assessed for age, insurance provider, median household income by zip code, Charlson Comorbidity Index, race, prior stricture management, and location of the index procedure. A multivariable logistic regression model was fit to assess factors influencing treatment modality (urethroplasty vs endoscopic management) and location (teaching hospital vs non-teaching hospital). RESULTS: Twenty seven thousand, five hundred and sixty-eight patients were identified that underwent treatment for USD. 25,864 (93.8%) treated via endoscopic approaches and 1704 (6.2%) treated with urethroplasty. Factors favoring utilization of urethroplasty include younger age, lower Charlson Comorbidity score, higher zip code median income quartile, private insurance, prior endoscopic treatment, and management at a teaching hospital. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic predictors of urethroplasty utilization include higher income status and private insurance. Patient-specific factors influencing urethroplasty were younger age and fewer medical comorbidities. A primary driver of urethroplasty utilization was treatment at a teaching hospital. Older and Hispanic patients were less likely to seek care at these facilities.

Total gastrectomy in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma: Is there an advantage to the minimally invasive approach?

BACKGROUND: Previous evaluations of the oncologic efficacy of minimally invasive approaches to total gastrectomy in gastric adenocarcinoma have been limited by sample size and duration of follow-up. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing robotic and laparoscopic or open total gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2015. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for patient, tumor, and treating facility factors. Kaplan-Meier survival functions were used to compare overall survival. Secondary outcomes included margin status, lymph node sampling, mortality, readmission, and length of stay. RESULTS: In the study, 3,213 (72.2%) patients underwent open total gastrectomy; 1,238 (27.8%) minimally invasive total gastrectomy. Patients undergoing minimally invasive total gastrectomy were more likely to be treated at academic (49.5% vs 57.8%, P < .05) and high-volume centers (21.6% vs 28.4%, P < .05). Propensity score matching yielded 1,238 open and 1,238 minimally invasive well-matched total gastrectomies. Minimally invasive was associated with a decreased median length of stay (10 vs 9 days; P < .01). Rates of positive surgical margins, 30-day readmission, 90-day mortality and overall survival were identical between matched cohorts (P > .1). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive approaches to total gastrectomy provide perioperative oncologic outcomes and overall survival rates that are identical to those for open total gastrectomy but are associated with reduced length of stay.

Do prolonged operative times obviate the benefits associated with minimally invasive colectomy?

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive colectomy is associated with improved length of stay and decreased postoperative morbidity. Little is known regarding the impact of prolonged operative time on the benefits afforded by minimally invasive colectomy. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure targeted colectomy dataset was queried to identify elective right and left colectomies performed between 2011 and 2017. Multivariable modeling was used to compare rates of composite 30-day death or serious morbidity, overall morbidity, mortality, anastomotic leak, surgical site infection, and length of stay for prolonged minimally invasive cases to those for average duration open cases. RESULTS: A total of 16,602 right colectomies and 36,557 left colectomies were identified. Median operative times for open and minimally invasive right colectomies were 107 min and 129 min (P < .01), while that for open left colectomies was 128 min and 156 min for minimally invasive left colectomies (P < .01). Cohorts were stratified by quartiles of operative time with the highest (fourth) quartile defined as a prolonged operating time. When compared with an average duration open colectomy, prolonged minimally invasive right colectomies and left colectomies were associated with decreased risk-adjusted rates of overall morbidity, surgical site infection, and with lesser lengths of stay (P < .05). Prolonged minimally invasive left colectomies were also associated with improved rates of composite 30-day death or serious morbidity relative to average open left colectomies (odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.79). CONCLUSION: Prolonged operating times of an minimally invasive approach do not obviate the benefits of an minimally invasive approach to colectomy.

The laparoscopic approach to pancreatoduodenectomy is cost neutral in very high-volume centers.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the impact of minimally invasive approaches to pancreatoduodenectomy on the aggregate costs of care for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database to identify patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy between 2014 and 2016. RESULTS: In this database, 488 (10%) patients underwent elective laparoscopic; 4,544 (90%) underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy. On adjusted analysis, the risk of perioperative morbidity and overall duration of hospitalization for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic were identical to those for patients undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy. Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic in low (+$10,399, 95% confidence interval [$3,700, $17,098]) and moderate to high (+$4,505, 95% confidence interval [$528, $8,481]) volume centers had greater costs than those undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy in the same centers. In very high-volume centers (>127 pancreatoduodenectomies/year), aggregate costs of care for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic were essentially identical to those undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy in the same centers (+$815, 95% confidence interval [-$1,530, $3,160]). CONCLUSION: Rates of morbidity and overall duration of hospitalization for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic are not different than those undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy. At low to moderate and high-volume centers, elective laparoscopic is associated with greater aggregate costs of care relative to open pancreatoduodenectomy. At very high-volume centers, elective laparoscopic is cost-neutral.