Opiate Prescriptions Vary among Common Urologic Procedures: A Claims Dataset Analysis.

Objectives: This study aimed to better understand differences in the total days' supply and fills of common opiates following urologic procedures. Materials and Methods: The Truven Health MarketScan® database was used to extract CPT codes from adults 18 years or older who underwent a urologic procedure with 90-day follow-up from 2012−2015 within the Austin−Round Rock, Texas metropolitan service area. A multivariate analysis and first hurdle modeling with a logistic outcome for any opiates was used to (1) assess differences in opioid prescribing patterns, (2) investigate opioid prescription outcomes, and (3) explore variability among opiate prescription patterns across seven urologic procedure categories. Results: Among the 2312 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 23.7% received an opiate, with an average total day's supply of 6.20 (range 2.61−10.59). The proportion of patients receiving opiates varied significantly by procedure type (p = 0.028). Patients that had reconstructive procedures had the highest proportion of any opiates and the highest number of mean opiate prescriptions among the seven procedure categories (42% received opiates, p = 0.028, mean opiate prescriptions were 1.0 among all patients, p = 0.026). After adjustments, the multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients undergoing reconstructive procedures filled more opiate prescriptions (odds ratio (OR) = 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.00−3.50, p = 0.05) compared to other subcategories. Of those that received opiates, reconstructive patients had a shorter time to fills (mean −18.4 days, CI −8.40 to −28.50, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients undergoing reconstructive procedures are prescribed and fill more opiates compared to other common urological procedures. The standardization and implementation of postoperative pain regimens may help curtail this variability.

Value-based care for the treatment and evaluation of benign prostatic hyperplasia: an analysis of a metropolitan service area claims database.

PURPOSE: With an aging population, cost containment and improved outcomes will be crucial for a sustainable healthcare ecosystem. Current data demonstrate great variation in payments for procedures and diagnostic workup of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). To help determine the best financial value in BPH care, we sought to analyze the major drivers of total payments in BPH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Commercial and Medicare claims from the Truven Health Analytics Markestscan® database for the Austin, Texas Metropolitan Service Area from 2012 to 2014 were queried for encounters with diagnosis and procedural codes related to BPH. Linear regression was utilized to assess factors related to BPH-related payments. Payments were then compared between surgical patients and patients managed with medication alone. RESULTS: Major drivers of total payments in BPH care were operative, namely transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) [$2778, 95% CI ($2385-$3171), p < 0.001) and photoselective vaporization (PVP) ($3315, 95% CI ($2781-$3849) p < 0.001). Most office procedures were also associated with significantly higher payments, including cystoscopy [$708, 95% CI ($417-$999), p < 0.001], uroflometry [$446, 95% CI ($225-668), p < 0.001], urinalysis [$167, 95% CI ($32-$302), p = 0.02], postvoid residual (PVR) [$245, 95% CI ($83-$407), p < 0.001], and urodynamics [$1251, 95% CI ($405-2097), p < 0.001]. Patients who had surgery had lower payments for their medications compared to patients who had no surgery [$120 (IQR: $0, $550) vs. $532 (IQR: $231, $1852), respectively, p < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Surgery and office-based procedures are associated with increased payments for BPH treatment. Although payments for surgery were more in total, surgical patients paid significantly less for BPH medications.

Occupational traumatic injuries rarely affect genitourinary organs: a retrospective, comparative study.

PURPOSE: To determine the mechanisms of injury associated with occupational injuries (OI) to genitourinary (GU) organs and compare GU OIs with GU non-OIs. METHODS: A single institution, retrospective study was conducted at a level 1 trauma center between 2010 and 2016 of all patients with GU injuries. OI was defined as any traumatic event that occurred in the workplace requiring hospital admission. Types of occupations were recorded in addition to the location of injury, mechanisms of injury, concomitant injuries, operative interventions, total cost, and mortality. GU OI patients were then compared to GU non-OI patients. RESULTS: 623 patients suffered a GU injury, of which 39 (6.3%) had a GU OI. Fall (43%) was the most common mechanism of injury; followed by motor vehicle collision/motorcycle crash (31%), crush injury (18%), and pedestrian struck (8%). The adrenal gland (38%) and kidney (38%) were the most commonly injured organs. There was no difference in mortality (13% GU OI vs. 15% GU non-OI, p = 0.70) or total direct cost ($21,192 ± 28,543 GU OI vs. $28,215 ± 32,332 GU non-OI, p = 0.45). Total costs were decreased with mortality from a GU injury (odds ratio (OR) 0.3, CI 0.26-0.59; p = < 0.001) and increased with higher injury severity scores (OR 1.1, CI 1.09-1.2; p = < 0.0001). Total costs were not affected by OI status. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational GU trauma presents with similar patterns of injury, hospital course, and direct cost as GU trauma that occurs in non-occupational settings.

Current management of pelvic fracture urethral injuries: to realign or not?

The acute management of pelvic fracture urethral injuries (PFUIs) remains a controversial topic. Currently, suprapubic tube (SPT) placement with delayed repair or primary realignment (PR) represents the strategies used to treat patients. While many will advocate the use of one technique over the other, the 2014 American Urological Association (AUA) Guidelines give providers the option for the management PFUI. Current literature evaluates these two interventions, focusing on the incidence of re-stricture formation, erectile dysfunction, and urinary incontinence. Here we perform a comprehensive review of the current management for PFUI, as well as, discuss the limitations of the studies and need for more prospective studies on this debated topic.