Minimally invasive vs open pyeloplasty in children: The differential effect of procedure volume on operative outcomes

Urology

Volumn 84, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 180-184

  Sukumar, Shyam ^a   Djahangirian, Orchidee ^b   Sood, Akshay ^a   Sammon, Jesse D ^a   Varda, Briony ^c   Janosek Albright, Kirsten ^a   Abd El Barr, Abd El Rahman ^a   Sun, Maxine ^b   Trinh, Quoc Dien ^c  

^a HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HOSPITAL CHARGE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PYELOPLASTY; SCHOOL CHILD; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETEROPELVIC JUNCTION OBSTRUCTION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; FEMALE; HOSPITALS, HIGH-VOLUME; HOSPITALS, LOW-VOLUME; HUMANS; INFANT; KIDNEY PELVIS; MALE; NEPHRECTOMY; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETERAL OBSTRUCTION;

EID: 84903690999     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: 15279995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.002     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. J.C. Anderson, and W. Hynes Retrocaval ureter; a case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation Br J Urol 21 1949 209 214
2. M.F. Monn, C.D. Bahler, and E.B. Schneider et al. Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients Urology 81 2013 1336 1341
3. C.A. Peters, R.N. Schlussel, and A.B. Retik Pediatric laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty J Urol 153 1995 1962 1965
4. Guillonneau B JC, Cappele O, Navarre S, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2001;165:[abstract V74].
5. R.W. Graham, GS, G.B. Bokinsky, and M.B. Monahan Urological upper tract surgery with the daVinci robotic system, pyeloplasty J Urol 165 2001 [abstract V74]
6. R.S. Lee, A.B. Retik, and J.G. Borer et al. Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery J Urol 175 2006 683 687 [discussion 687]
7. B.J. Minnillo, J.A. Cruz, and R.H. Sayao et al. Long-term experience and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children and young adults J Urol 185 2011 1455 1460
8. E. Riachy, N.G. Cost, and W.R. Defoor et al. Pediatric standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparative single institution study J Urol 189 2013 283 287
9. D.S. Yee, A.M. Shanberg, and B.P. Duel et al. Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children Urology 67 2006 599 602
10. I.A. Turk, J.W. Davis, and B. Winkelmann et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty - the method of choice in the presence of an enlarged renal pelvis and crossing vessels Eur Urol 42 2002 268 275
11. A. Bachmann, R. Ruszat, and T. Forster et al. Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO): solving the technical difficulties Eur Urol 49 2006 264 272
12. Q.D. Trinh, J. Sammon, and M. Sun et al. Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample Eur Urol 61 2012 679 685
13. A. Tewari, P. Sooriakumaran, and D.A. Bloch et al. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy Eur Urol 62 2012 1 15
14. J.D. Sammon, P.I. Karakiewicz, and M. Sun et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: the differential effect of regionalization, procedure volume and operative approach J Urol 2012
15. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Overview of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Available at: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview. jsp. Accessed March 1, 2013.
16. S. Sukumar, F. Roghmann, and A. Sood et al. Correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: national trends and comparative effectiveness in operative outcomes J Endourol 2014
17. M.E. Charlson, P. Pompei, and K.L. Ales et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation J Chronic Dis 40 1987 373 383
18. R.A. Deyo, D.C. Cherkin, and M.A. Ciol Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases J Clin Epidemiol 45 1992 613 619
19. S. Sukumar, M. Sun, and P.I. Karakiewicz et al. National trends and disparities in the use of minimally invasive adult pyeloplasty J Urol 188 2012 913 918
20. Q.D. Trinh, M. Sun, and J. Sammon et al. Leapfrog volume thresholds and perioperative complications after radical prostatectomy Cancer 118 2012 4991 4998
21. F.N. Joudi, V. Allareddy, and C.J. Kane et al. Analysis of complications following partial and total nephrectomy for renal cancer in a population based sample J Urol 177 2007 1709 1714
22. M.P. Herman, J.D. Raman, and S. Dong et al. Increasing body mass index negatively impacts outcomes following robotic radical prostatectomy JSLS 11 2007 438 442
23. J.D. Birkmeyer, A.E. Siewers, and E.V. Finlayson et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States N Engl J Med 346 2002 1128 1137
24. J.F. Finks, N.H. Osborne, and J.D. Birkmeyer Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery N Engl J Med 364 2011 2128 2137
25. J.D. Birkmeyer, T.A. Stukel, and A.E. Siewers et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States N Engl J Med 349 2003 2117 2127
26. S. Sukumar, J. Sammon, and M. Sun et al. Adoption of robotic surgery: an analogy from urologic oncology J Clin Oncol 30 2012 2931 2932 [author reply 2932-3]