Adverse health outcomes associated with surgical management of the small renal mass.

PURPOSE: Partial and radical nephrectomy are treatments for the small renal mass. Partial nephrectomy is considered the gold standard as it may protect against renal dysfunction compared to radical nephrectomy. However, both treatments may cause adverse health outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A matched cohort study was performed using the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare data set. Individuals treated with partial or radical nephrectomy for 4 cm or smaller nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma were compared to 2 control groups (nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer and noncancer). A greedy algorithm matched surgical groups to controls. Medicare claims were examined for renal, cardiovascular and secondary cancer events. RESULTS: Patients who underwent partial nephrectomy (1,471) and radical nephrectomy (4,299) were matched to controls. The time to event model demonstrated an increased risk of renal events for both treatments. Compared to the bladder cancer control and noncancer control groups, radical nephrectomy hazard ratios for renal events were 2.415 (p <0.0001) and 6.211 (p <0.0001), respectively, while partial nephrectomy hazard ratios were 1.513 (p <0.0001) and 4.926 (p <0.0001), respectively. Secondary cancers were increased for partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy compared to both control groups (p <0.0001). Cardiovascular events were increased for both treatments compared to noncancer controls (p <0.0001), but not compared to bladder cancer controls. CONCLUSIONS: Partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy may lead to adverse health outcomes. Compared to controls, partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy are associated with worsened renal outcomes. The increase in secondary cancers and cardiovascular events with both treatments is notable, and requires further investigation. Further research should investigate if active surveillance of the appropriately selected small renal mass limits adverse health outcomes.

Medicare payments for outpatient urological surgery by location of care.

PURPOSE: The cost implications associated with offloading outpatient surgery from hospitals to ambulatory surgery centers and the physician office remain poorly defined. Therefore, we determined whether payments for outpatient surgery vary by location of care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using national Medicare claims from 1998 to 2006, we identified elderly patients who underwent 1 of 22 common outpatient urological procedures. For each procedure we measured all relevant payments (in United States dollars) made during the 30-day claims window that encompassed the procedure date. We then categorized payment types (hospital, physician and outpatient facility). Finally, we used multivariable regression to compare price standardized payments across hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and the physician office. RESULTS: Average total payments for outpatient surgery episodes varied widely from $200 for urethral dilation in the physician office to $5,688 for hospital based shock wave lithotripsy. For all but 2 procedure groups, ambulatory surgery centers and physician offices were associated with lower overall episode payments than hospitals. For instance, average total payments for urodynamic procedures performed at ambulatory surgery centers were less than a third of those done at hospitals (p <0.001). Compared to hospitals, office based prostate biopsies were nearly 75% less costly (p <0.001). Outpatient facility payments were the biggest driver of these differences. CONCLUSIONS: These data support policies that encourage the provision of outpatient surgery in less resource intensive settings.

Surgical quality among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing outpatient urological surgery.

PURPOSE: The cost efficiency gains achieved from moving procedures to ambulatory surgery centers and offices may be mitigated if the quality of surgical care at these facilities is not comparable to that at the hospital. Motivated by this, we assessed short-term morbidity and mortality for patients by location of care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a national sample of Medicare claims (1998 to 2006), we identified elderly beneficiaries who underwent one of 22 common outpatient urological procedures. After determining the facility type where each procedure was performed, we measured 30-day mortality, unexpected admissions and postoperative complications. Finally, we fit multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate the association between occurrence of an adverse event and the ambulatory setting where surgical care was delivered. RESULTS: During the study period, there was a substantial increase in the frequency of nonhospital based outpatient surgery. Compared to ambulatory surgery centers and offices, hospitals treated more women (p <0.001). Those patients also tended to be less healthy (p <0.001). While patients experienced fewer postoperative complications following surgery at an ambulatory surgery center, procedures performed outside the hospital were associated with a higher likelihood of a same day admission (ambulatory surgery centers OR 6.96, 95% CI 4.44-10.90 and offices OR 3.64, 95% CI 2.48-5.36). However, notably with case mix adjustment the probability of any adverse event was exceedingly low across all ambulatory settings. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that small but measurable variation in surgical quality exists by location of care delivery.

The Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of the 3 primary treatments for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (ie, open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty, and endopyelotomy) as assessed by failure rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using MarketScan data, we identified adults (ages 18-64 years) who underwent treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction between 2002 and 2010. Our primary outcome was failure (ie, need for a secondary procedure). We fit a Cox proportional hazards model to examine the effects of different patient, regional, and provider characteristics on treatment failure. We then implemented a survival analysis framework to examine the failure-free probability for each treatment. RESULTS: We identified 1125 minimally invasive pyeloplasties, 775 open pyeloplasties, and 1315 endopyelotomies with failure rates of 7%, 9%, and 15%, respectively. Compared with endopyelotomy, minimally invasive pyeloplasty was associated with a lower risk of treatment failure (adjusted hazards ratio [aHR] 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.69). Minimally invasive and open pyeloplasties had similar failure rates. Compared with open pyeloplasty, endopyelotomy was associated with a higher risk of treatment failure (aHR 1.78; 95% CI, 1.33-2.37). The average length of stay was 2.7 days for minimally invasive pyeloplasty and 4.2 days for open pyeloplasty (P <.001). CONCLUSION: Endopyelotomy has the highest failure rate, yet it remains a common treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Future research should examine to what extent patients and physicians are driving the use of endopyelotomy.

Variation in the Use of Open Pyeloplasty, Minimally Invasive Pyeloplasty, and Endopyelotomy for the Treatment of Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Adults.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction is a common condition that can be treated with open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty, and endopyelotomy. While all these treatments are effective, the extent to which they are used is unclear. We sought to examine the dissemination of these treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the MarketScan® database, we identified adults 18 to 64 years old who underwent treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction between 2002 and 2010. Our primary outcome was ureteropelvic junction obstruction treatment (i.e., open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty, endopyelotomy). We fit a multilevel multinomial logistic regression model accounting for patients nested within providers to examine several factors associated with treatment. RESULTS: Rates of minimally invasive pyeloplasty increased 10-fold, while rates of open pyeloplasty decreased by over 40%, and rates of endopyelotomy were relatively stable. Factors associated with receiving an open vs a minimally invasive pyeloplasty were largely similar. Compared with endopyelotomy, patients receiving minimally invasive pyeloplasty were less likely to be older (odds ratio [OR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95, 0.97) and live in the south (OR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33, 0.81) and west regions (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.33, 0.98) compared with the northeast and were more likely to live in metropolitan statistical areas (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.08, 2.13). CONCLUSIONS: Over this 9-year period, the landscape of ureteropelvic junction obstruction treatment has changed dramatically. Further research is needed to understand why geographic factors were associated with receiving a minimally invasive pyeloplasty or an endopyelotomy.

Cost Analysis of Treatments for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction is a common urologic condition that accounts for approximately $12 million in inpatient spending annually. Few studies have assessed the costs related to treatment. We sought to examine the cost of care for patients treated for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the MarketScan® database to identify adults from 18 to 64 years old treated with minimally invasive pyeloplasty, open pyeloplasty, and endopyelotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction between 2002 and 2010. Our primary outcome was total expenditures related to the surgical episode, defined as the period from 30 days prior until 30 days after the index surgery. We fit a multinomial linear regression model to evaluate cost of the surgical episode, adjusting for age, gender, comorbidity, benefit plan type, and region of residence. RESULTS: We identified 1251 endopyelotomies, 717 open pyeloplasties, and 1048 minimally invasive pyeloplasties. The adjusted mean costs were $16,379 for endopyelotomy, $22,421 for open pyeloplasty, and $22,843 for minimally invasive pyeloplasty (p < 0.0001, ANCOVA). Both open and minimally invasive pyeloplasties were more costly than endopyelotomy (both p < 0.0001, comparison between groups). However, the cost of open and minimally invasive pyeloplasties was similar (p = 0.57, comparison between groups). CONCLUSIONS: Among the three treatments, endopyelotomy was the least expensive in the immediate perioperative period. Open and minimally invasive pyeloplasties were similar in cost, but both more expensive than endopyelotomies. The similar cost between the two pyeloplasty approaches provides additional evidence that minimally invasive pyeloplasty should be considered the standard treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Comparative effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for treating patients with kidney stones.

IMPORTANCE: Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) account for more than 90% of procedural interventions for kidney stones, which affect 1 in 11 persons in the United States. Efficacy data for SWL are more than 20 years old. Advances in URS, along with emerging evidence of reduced efficacy of modern lithotripters, have created uncertainty regarding the comparative effectiveness of these 2 treatment options. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of SWL and URS to fragment or remove urinary stones in a large private payer cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of privately insured beneficiaries who had an emergency department visit for a kidney stone and subsequently underwent SWL or URS. Using an instrumental variable approach to control for observed and unobserved differences between the 2 groups, we created a bivariate probit model to estimate the probability of repeat intervention following an initial procedure. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A second procedure (SWL or URS) within 120 days of an initial intervention to fragment or remove or a kidney stone. RESULTS: Following an acute care visit for a kidney stone, 21 937 patients (45.8%) underwent SWL and 25 914 patients (54.2%) underwent URS to fragment or remove the stone. After the initial URS, 4852 patients (18.7%) underwent an additional fragmentation or removal procedure compared with 5186 patients (23.6%) after the initial SWL (P < .001). After adjusting for observed and unobserved variables, the estimated probabilities of repeat intervention were 11.0%(95%CI, 10.9-11.1) following SWL and 0.3%(95%CI, 0.325-0.329) following URS. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among privately insured beneficiaries requiring procedural intervention to remove a symptomatic stone, repeat intervention is more likely following SWL. For the marginal patient (as opposed to the average patient), the probability of repeat intervention is substantially higher.