Shyam Sukumar

Practice Patterns and Outcomes of Open and Minimally Invasive Partial Nephrectomy Since the Introduction of Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Results from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample

PURPOSE We determined practice patterns and perioperative outcomes of open and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy in the United States since the introduction of a robot-assisted modifier in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. MATERIALS AND METHODS We identified all patients with nonmetastatic disease treated with open, laparoscopic or robotic partial nephrectomy in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between October 2008 and December 2010. Utilization rates were assessed by year, patient and hospital characteristics. We evaluated the perioperative outcomes of open vs robotic and open vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using binary logistic regression models adjusted for patient and hospital covariates. RESULTS In a weighted sample of 38,064 partial nephrectomies 66.9%, 23.9% and 9.2% of the procedures were open, robotic and laparoscopic operations, respectively. In 2010 the relative annual increase in open, robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy was 7.9%, 45.4% and 6.1%, respectively. Compared to open partial nephrectomy patients treated with minimally invasive partial nephrectomy were less likely to receive blood transfusion (robotic vs laparoscopic OR 0.56, p <0.001 vs OR 0.68, p = 0.016), postoperative complication (OR 0.63, p <0.001 vs OR 0.78, p <0.009) or prolonged length of stay (OR 0.27 vs OR 0.41, each p <0.001). Only patients who underwent the robotic procedure were less likely to experience an intraoperative complication (robotic vs laparoscopic OR 0.69, p = 0.014 vs OR 0.67, p = 0.069). Excess hospital charges were higher after robotic surgery (OR 1.35, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS The dissemination of robotic surgery for partial nephrectomy in the United States has been rapid and safe. Compared to open partial nephrectomy the robotic procedure had lower odds than laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for most study outcomes except hospital charges. Robotic partial nephrectomy has now supplanted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy as the most common minimally invasive approach for partial nephrectomy.

Comparative Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted and Open Radical Prostatectomy in the Postdissemination Era

PURPOSE Given the lack of randomized trials comparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP), we sought to re-examine the outcomes of these techniques using a cohort of patients treated in the postdissemination era. PATIENTS AND METHODS Overall, data from 5,915 patients with prostate cancer treated with RARP or ORP within the SEER-Medicare linked database diagnosed between October 2008 and December 2009 were abstracted. Postoperative complications, blood transfusions, prolonged length of stay (pLOS), readmission, additional cancer therapies, and costs of care within the first year after surgery were compared between the two surgical approaches. To decrease the effect of unmeasured confounders, instrumental variable analysis was performed. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were then performed. RESULTS Overall, 2,439 patients (41.2%) and 3,476 patients (58.8%) underwent ORP and RARP, respectively. In multivariable analyses, patients undergoing RARP had similar odds of overall complications, readmission, and additional cancer therapies compared with patients undergoing ORP. However, RARP was associated with a higher probability of experiencing 30- and 90-day genitourinary and miscellaneous medical complications (all P ≤ .02). Additionally, RARP led to a lower risk of experiencing blood transfusion and of having a pLOS (all P < .001). Finally, first-year reimbursements were greater for patients undergoing RARP compared with ORP (P < .001). CONCLUSION RARP and ORP have comparable rates of complications and additional cancer therapies, even in the postdissemination era. Although RARP was associated with lower risk of blood transfusions and a slightly shorter length of stay, these benefits do not translate to a decrease in expenditures.

Barbed Suture for Renorrhaphy During Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is an emerging technique for minimally invasive nephron-sparing surgery that may facilitate the technical challenges of sutured renorrhaphy. Barbed suture allows for knotless wound closure and improves suturing efficiency. We present the first clinical study of barbed suture for renorrhaphy during RAPN in human patients and compare perioperative outcomes to RAPN with polyglactin suture. PATIENTS AND METHODS Thirty consecutive patients underwent RAPN by a single surgeon; 15 using polyglactin suture for renorrhaphy followed by 15 using the V-Loc 180 wound closure device. Renorrhaphy was performed in two layers, with a continuous running closure of deep vessels and the collecting system, followed by a running closure of the renal capsule, using the sliding Hem-o-lok clip technique. Operative characteristics and complications were compared between groups. RESULTS Renorrhaphy was successfully completed in all 30 consecutive RAPN procedures. V-Loc and conventional groups were equivalent in demographic and tumor characteristics. Mean operative and console time were equivalent; warm ischemia time was significantly shorter in the V-Loc group (18.5 vs 24.7 min, P = 0.008). There were no instances of suture slippage or tearing in the barbed suture group. The barbs held the sliding clip renorrhaphy intact without the need for redundant clips to prevent backsliding. CONCLUSION Use of barbed suture simplifies the renorrhaphy technique during RAPN and improves efficiency, allowing for reduced warm ischemia times. We demonstrate feasibility and safety of this suture technique in human patients undergoing minimally invasive partial nephrectomy.

Robot-Assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy: The Differential Effect of Regionalization, Procedure Volume and Operative Approach

PURPOSE The use of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has increased rapidly despite the absence of randomized, controlled trials showing the superiority of this approach. While recent studies suggest an advantage for perioperative complication rates, they fail to account for the volume-outcome relationship. We compared perioperative outcomes after robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy, while considering the impact of this established relationship. MATERIALS AND METHODS Using the NIS (Nationwide Inpatient Sample), we abstracted data on patients treated with radical prostatectomy in 2009. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were done to compare the rates of blood transfusion, intraoperative and postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, increased hospital charges and mortality between robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy overall and across volume quartiles. RESULTS An estimated 77,616 men underwent radical prostatectomy, including a robot-assisted and an open procedure in 63.9% and 36.1%, respectively. Low volume centers averaged 26.2 robot-assisted and 5.2 open cases, while very high volume centers averaged 578.8 robot-assisted and 150.2 open cases. Overall, patients treated with the robot-assisted procedure experienced a lower rate of adverse outcomes than those treated with the open procedure for all measured categories. Across equivalent volume quartiles robot-assisted radical prostatectomy outcomes were generally favorable. However, the open procedure at high volume centers resulted in a lower postoperative complication rate (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.75), elevated hospital charges (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.87) and a comparable blood transfusion rate (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.93-2.02) relative to the robot-assisted procedure at low volume centers. CONCLUSIONS Regionalization has occurred to a greater extent for robot-assisted than for open radical prostatectomy with an associated benefit in overall outcomes. Nonetheless, low volume institutions experienced inferior outcomes relative to the highest volume centers irrespective of approach. These findings demonstrate the importance of accounting for hospital volume when examining the benefit of a surgical technique.

Multi-institutional analysis of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal tumors >4 cm versus ≤4 cm in 445 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) has emerged as a viable approach to minimally invasive surgery for small renal tumors. There are few reports of RPN for tumors >4 cm. Our objective was to evaluate outcomes of RPN for tumors >4 cm compared with RPN for tumors ≤ 4 cm in a large multi-institutional study. PATIENTS AND METHODS We reviewed data for 445 consecutive patients who underwent RPN by experienced surgeons at four academic institutions from 2006 to 2010. Patients were stratified into two groups according to radiographic tumor size. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and oncologic outcomes were recorded. RESULTS A total of 83 of 445 (18.7%) patients had tumors >4 cm with a median radiographic tumor size of 5.0 cm (4.1-11 cm). Patients with tumors >4 cm had a higher proportion of hilar tumors (9.8% vs 4.7%, P<0.001), a higher mean R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score (8.0 vs 6.3, P<0.01), longer warm ischemia time (WIT) (24 vs 17 min, P<0.001), and an increased rate of collecting system repair (72.2% vs 51.6%, P=0.006) compared with patients with tumors ≤ 4 cm. Functional outcomes and complications were similar between groups. There were no positive margins in patients with tumors >4 cm and only one recurrence. CONCLUSIONS In the largest multi-institutional series of RPN for tumors >4 cm, we demonstrate safety, feasibility, and efficacy of RPN for tumors >4 cm. Patients with tumors >4 cm had a higher nephrometry score, longer WIT, and slightly higher estimated blood loss compared with patients who had tumors ≤ 4 cm, but there was no increased risk of adverse outcomes in the hands of experienced surgeons.

Venous Thromboembolism After Major Cancer Surgery: Temporal Trends and Patterns of Care

IMPORTANCE There is limited data on the prevalence and mortality of venous thromboembolism (VTE) following oncologic surgery. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the trends, factors, and mortality of VTE following major cancer surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Patients undergoing colectomy, cystectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, hysterectomy, lung resection, pancreatectomy, or prostatectomy were identified retrospectively using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between January 1, 1999, and December 30, 2009, resulting in a weighted estimate of 2,508,916 patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Venous thromboembolism following major cancer surgery was assessed according to date, patient, and hospital characteristics. The determinants of in-hospital VTE were evaluated using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS Venous thromboembolism showed an estimated annual percentage increase of 4.0% (95% CI, 2.9% to 5.1%), which contrasts with a 2.4% (95% CI, -4.3% to -0.5%) annual decrease in mortality in VTE after major cancer surgery. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; P < .001), female sex (OR, 1.25; P < .001), black race (vs white; OR, 1.56; P < .001), Charlson comorbidity index score of 3 or more (OR, 1.85; P < .001), and Medicaid (vs private insurance; OR, 2.04; P < .001), Medicare (OR, 1.39; P < .001), and uninsured (OR, 1.49; P < .001) status were associated with an increased risk of VTE. Conversely, other (nonwhite and nonblack) race (OR, 0.75; P < .001) was associated with a lower risk of VTE. Among hospital characteristics, urban location (OR, 1.32; P < .001) and teaching status (OR, 1.08; P = .01) were associated with greater odds of VTE. Patients with vs without VTE experienced 5.3-fold greater odds of mortality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE During our study period, VTE events following major cancer surgery increased in frequency; however, associated VTE mortality decreased. Changing VTE detection guidelines and better management of this condition may explain our findings.

Anastomosis During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Barbed and Standard Monofilament Suture

OBJECTIVE To compare perioperative and functional outcomes after urethrovesical anastomosis (UVA) with barbed polyglyconate and monofilament poliglecaprone in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Barbed polyglyconate suture was first used for the UVA during RARP beginning in January 2010; safety and feasibility were previously demonstrated in 51 patients. METHODS From May to September 2010, 64 patients meeting all the inclusion criteria participated in the present multisurgeon prospective, randomized, controlled trial and underwent posterior repair and UVA during RARP with either barbed polyglyconate (n=33) or monofilament poliglecaprone (n=31) suture. The primary outcomes were the anastomotic (UVA) and posterior reconstruction times. Secondary outcomes included cystogram leak, bladder neck reconstruction rate, and 6-week functional outcomes assessed by a self-administered validated patient questionnaire. RESULTS Posterior reconstruction was performed within 3.3 minutes with the barbed suture versus 4.3 minutes with the monofilament poliglecaprone suture (23.3% reduction) and UVA within 10.1 versus 13.8 minutes, respectively (26.8% reduction). The absolute time difference for the 2-layer anastomosis was 4.7 minutes (a 26.0% reduction in the total anastomosis time). All other perioperative outcomes were equivalent between the 2 groups. Urinary functional outcomes, including the pad use and leakage rates, were equivalent at 6 weeks. CONCLUSION Anastomosis during RARP with the V-Loc barbed suture can be performed safely and more efficiently than with standard monofilament suture. We demonstrated a 26% decrease in the anastomotic time with no increase in the adverse events, no instances of urinary retention and equivalent functional outcomes were measured with the self-administered patient questionnaire.

Morbidity and mortality of radical prostatectomy differs by insurance status.

Private insurance status may favorably affect various health outcomes including those associated with radical prostatectomy (RP). We explored the effect of insurance status on 5 short‐term RP outcomes.

Alpha blockers for treatment of ureteric stones: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of alpha blockers in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, LILACS, and Medline databases and scientific meeting abstracts to July 2016. Review methods Randomized controlled trials of alpha blockers compared with placebo or control for treatment of ureteric stones were eligible.Two team members independently extracted data from each included study. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who passed their stone. Secondary outcomes were the time to passage; the number of pain episodes; and the proportions of patients who underwent surgery, required admission to hospital, and experienced an adverse event. Pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the primary outcome with profile likelihood random effects models. Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias and the GRADE approach were used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarize conclusions. Results 55 randomized controlled trials were included. There was moderate quality evidence that alpha blockers facilitate passage of ureteric stones (risk ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 1.61). Based on a priori subgroup analysis, there seemed to be no benefit to treatment with alpha blocker among patients with smaller ureteric stones (1.19, 1.00 to 1.48). Patients with larger stones treated with an alpha blocker, however, had a 57% higher risk of stone passage compared with controls (1.57, 1.17 to 2.27). The effect of alpha blockers was independent of stone location (1.48 (1.05 to 2.10) for upper or middle stones; 1.49 (1.38 to 1.63) for lower stones). Compared with controls, patients who received alpha blockers had significantly shorter times to stone passage (mean difference −3.79 days, −4.45 to −3.14; moderate quality evidence), fewer episodes of pain (−0.74 episodes, −1.28 to −0.21; low quality evidence), lower risks of surgical intervention (risk ratio 0.44, 0.37 to 0.52; moderate quality evidence), and lower risks of admission to hospital (0.37, 0.22 to 0.64; moderate quality evidence). The risk of a serious adverse event was similar between treatment and control groups (1.49, 0.24 to 9.35; low quality evidence). Conclusions Alpha blockers seem efficacious in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones who are amenable to conservative management. The greatest benefit might be among those with larger stones. These results support current guideline recommendations advocating a role for alpha blockers in patients with ureteric stones. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration No CRD42015024169.

Disparities in access to care at high-volume institutions for uro-oncologic procedures

Socioeconomic status represents an established barrier to health care access. Age, sex, and race may also play a role. The authors examined whether these affect the access to high‐volume hospitals for uro‐oncologic procedures in the United States.