Tianyi Sun

Evaluation of Trends in the Use of InterStim for Fecal Incontinence: The New York State Experience

Background: Fecal incontinence (FI) represents a large source of morbidity and is a challenging clinical problem to manage. InterStim was approved to treat FI in 2011. Little is known about its adoption. We sought to characterize patterns of use of Interstim since Food and Drug Administration approval for FI. Methods: The New York State SPARCS database was used to evaluate InterStim use for FI from 2011 to 2014. The primary endpoint was the number of successful implantations of InterStim. Secondary endpoints included device removal, median time to removal of device, 90-day infection rates, and percentage of procedures performed by surgeon specialty and geographic location. Results: A total of 369 patients with FI underwent “Stage 1” of InterStim from 2011 to 2014. A total of 302 patients underwent “Stage 2,” yielding a trial period failure rate of 18.2%. The majority of patients who underwent successful implantation were female (87.7%) and White (78.8%). Twenty-nine patients underwent device removal after a median duration of 147 days. Estimated risk of removal at median follow-up of 2 years was 11.8%. Colorectal surgeons comprised 51.1% of all providers followed by gynecologic (24.4%) and urologic surgeons (17.8%). A total of 71.7% of providers performed <5 procedures, while 3 of the highest volume providers performed 50.7% of all procedures. Conclusions: InterStim for FI has been used by a wide variety of providers in New York State although only a few high-volume providers have performed the majority of procedures. White, female patients with Medicare are the most common recipients of InterStim. Further work must be done to develop strategies for improving access to this technology and to determine whether volume relates to outcomes.

Early versus late surgical management of complicated appendicitis in children: A statewide database analysis with one-year follow-up

BACKGROUND Complicated appendicitis is common in children, yet the timing of surgical management remains controversial. Some support initial antibiotics with delayed operation whereas others support immediate operation. While a few randomized trials have evaluated this question, they have been small, single-center trials with limited follow-up. We present a database analysis of outcomes in early versus late surgical management of complicated appendicitis with one-year follow-up. METHODS We conducted a retrospective review of children with complicated appendicitis presenting between 2000 and 2013, utilizing a New York State database. We compare children undergoing later versus early appendectomy with a primary outcome measure of any complication within one year as determined from ICD-9 codes. RESULTS 8840 children were included in the analysis, 7708 of whom underwent early appendectomy. Patients with late appendectomy were significantly more likely to have at least one complication when compared to those undergoing early appendectomy (34.6% vs 26.7%, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS We present the first population-level study evaluating early versus late appendectomy in children with complicated appendicitis with a one-year follow-up period. Children undergoing late appendectomy were more likely to have a complication than those undergoing early appendectomy. These data corroborated previous studies supporting early operative management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE This study provides level III evidence of a treatment study.

A contemporary analysis of dual inflatable penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincters outcomes

Purpose: Inflatable penile prostheses and artificial urinary sphincters are used to treat men with erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence, respectively. After prostate cancer treatment men often experience erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence. Dual prosthetic implantation can improve the quality of life of these men. We evaluated reoperation outcomes in men who underwent dual implantation compared to each device implanted individually. Materials and Methods: We queried the SPARCS (New York State Department of Health Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative) database for men who underwent inflatable penile prosthesis and/or artificial urinary sphincter insertion between 2000 and 2014. The primary outcomes were the inflatable penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter reoperation rates (revision, replacement or removal). Multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess the association of dual implantation with reoperation. Adjusted time to event analysis was also performed. Results: Median followup in the inflatable penile prosthesis cohort was 66 months (IQR 25–118) and in the artificial urinary sphincter cohort it was 69 months (IQR 27–121). Compared with men who received a penile prosthesis alone those with a penile prosthesis and an artificial urinary sphincter had a higher likelihood of undergoing inflatable penile prosthesis reoperation at 1 year (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.32–3.27, p <0.01) and 3 years (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.69–3.99, p <0.01). Compared with an artificial urinary sphincter alone patients with an inflatable penile prosthesis and an artificial urinary sphincter did not have a higher likelihood of undergoing artificial urinary sphincter reoperation at 1 year (p = 0.76) or 3 years (p = 0.73). Conclusions: Combined inflatable penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter insertion portends a higher likelihood of inflatable penile prosthesis reoperation at 1 and 3 years. However, artificial urinary sphincter outcomes remain comparable. These findings should be used to better counsel patients about the risk of reoperation when undergoing dual implantation.

Failures of Sacral Neuromodulation for Incontinence

This study examines the reintervention rate associated with treatment failures and device malfunctions at 1, 3, and 5 years after sacral neuromodulation surgery.

Trends in Use of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement by Age

Author Contributions: Drs Gross and Blot had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Concept and design: Gross, Visvanathan. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors. Drafting of the manuscript: Gross. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Blot, Visvanathan. Statistical analysis: Gross, Visvanathan. Obtained funding: Blot.