Hospital Volume Does Not Influence the Safety of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in England: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Differences in the percutaneous nephrolithotomy practice patterns among Latin American urologists with and without endourology training

PURPOSE

Although the worldwide percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) practice patterns determined via a survey sent to members of the Endourological Society have been published, differences in PCNL practice patterns among Latin American urologists based on endourological or lithiasis training have not been published. To determine the PCNL practice patterns among Latin American urologists with and without training in endourology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The SurveyMonkey® web platform was used to develop a 27- item survey on PCNL for the treatment of renal stones, and the survey was sent via e-mail and other electronic media to 2000 urologists from 15 Latin American countries. Endourology-trained (group 1) and nontrained urologists (group 2) were analyzed. The group results were compared using the chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests. SPSS version 20 for Windows was used for all analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 331 urologists responded to the survey (rate of 16.55%): 221 (66.7%) in group 1 and 110 (33.2%) in group 2). In groups 1 and 2, 91.9% and 63.2% performed PCNL, respectively; 85.1% and 58.5% used preoperative tomography, respectively; 12.7% and 4.7% used preoperative nephrolitometry nomograms, respectively; 45.2% and 32.1% used endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery, respectively; 68.3% and 38.7% used multiple percutaneous tract realization, respectively; and 19.9% and 5.7% used minimally invasive PCNL, respectively (all p=0.0005).

CONCLUSIONS

Statistically significant differences were observed in PCNL practice patterns of Latin American urologists with and without training in endourology. Specific training in endourology significantly influence the practice patterns of Latin American urologists.

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Spina Bifida: Complex Major Stone Surgery?

BACKGROUND

The incidence of spina bifida (SB) is ∼1:1000, and risk of stone disease is substantially raised in SB. This is the unique published study of the outcome of patients with SB undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) compared to a neurologically intact historically matched control group at the same institution.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

A series of 96 PCNLs in 13 SB and 50 non-SB patients was analyzed. The following measurements were recorded: (1) Comorbidities; (2) Preoperative: (renal function, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] score); (3) Intraoperative: (anesthesia time, number of tracks, stone-free rate); and (4) Postoperative: (sepsis, intensive therapy unit and total length of stay, transfusion rate, stone composition, rate of stone disease-related nephrectomy).

RESULTS

Retrograde access to the ureter was impossible in all cases of SB. The median ASA grade (OR 10.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6-42.7) and operative time (median difference 30 minutes, 95% CI 20-40) were both higher in the SB cohort. Surgeon's estimate of stone-free rate was significantly lower in the SB cohort (46% vs 82%). Intensive care requirement (0.29 days/PCNL vs 0.1 days/PCNL); total hospital stay (7 days vs 4 days); postoperative transfusion rate (11.8% vs 1.6%); and sepsis rate (38% vs 1.6%) were all significantly higher in the SB group. Repeat PCNL and nephrectomy for recurrent stone disease were both significantly increased in SB cohort compared to control group.

CONCLUSIONS

PCNL in patients with SB is associated with multiple parameters of poor outcome. Patients with SB should be counseled about increased peri-operative risk and likelihood of stone recurrence. In an era where hospitals are judged according to comparative outcomes, a case may be made for comparing PCNL in this cohort of patients separately because of the significantly increased peri- and postoperative morbidity.

Influence of hospital volume on nephrectomy mortality and complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis stratified by surgical type

OBJECTIVES

The provision of complex surgery is increasingly centralised to high-volume (HV) specialist hospitals. Evidence to support nephrectomy centralisation however has been inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between hospital case volumes and perioperative outcomes in radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy and nephrectomy with venous thrombectomy.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies published between 1990 and 2016. Pooled effect estimates for nephrectomy mortality and complications were calculated for each nephrectomy type using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the effects of heterogeneity on the pooled effect estimates by excluding studies with the heaviest weighting, lowest methodological score and most likely to introduce bias from misclassification of standardised hospital volume.

RESULTS

Some 226 372 patients from 16 publications were included in our review and meta-analysis. Considerable between-study heterogeneity was noted and only a few reported volume-outcome relationships specifically in partial nephrectomy or nephrectomy with venous thrombectomy.HV hospitals were correlated with a 26% and 52% reduction in mortality for radical nephrectomy (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.90, p<0.01) and nephrectomy with venous thrombectomy (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.81, p<0.01), respectively. In addition, radical nephrectomy in HV hospitals was associated with an 18% reduction in complications (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92, p<0.01). No significant volume-outcome relationship in mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.26, p=0.73) or complications (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.30, p=0.44) was observed for partial nephrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that patients undergoing radical nephrectomy have improved outcomes when treated by HV hospitals. Evidence of this in partial nephrectomy and nephrectomy with venous thrombectomy is however not yet clear and could be secondary to the low number of studies included and the small patient number in our analyses. Further investigation is warranted to establish the full potential of nephrectomy centralisation particularly as existing evidence is of low quality with significant heterogeneity.