Journal of endourology · 2017
Variation in the Use of Open Pyeloplasty, Minimally Invasive Pyeloplasty, and Endopyelotomy for the Treatment of Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Adults.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jacobs Bruce L, Lai Julie C, Seelam Rachana, Hanley Janet M, Wolf J Stuart, Hollenbeck Brent K, Hollingsworth John M, Dick Andrew W, Setodji Claude M, Saigal Christopher S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction is a common condition that can be treated with open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty, and endopyelotomy. While all these treatments are effective, the extent to which they are used is unclear. We sought to examine the dissemination of these treatments.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the MarketScan® database, we identified adults 18 to 64 years old who underwent treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction between 2002 and 2010. Our primary outcome was ureteropelvic junction obstruction treatment (i.e., open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty, endopyelotomy). We fit a multilevel multinomial logistic regression model accounting for patients nested within providers to examine several factors associated with treatment.
RESULTS: Rates of minimally invasive pyeloplasty increased 10-fold, while rates of open pyeloplasty decreased by over 40%, and rates of endopyelotomy were relatively stable. Factors associated with receiving an open vs a minimally invasive pyeloplasty were largely similar. Compared with endopyelotomy, patients receiving minimally invasive pyeloplasty were less likely to be older (odds ratio [OR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95, 0.97) and live in the south (OR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33, 0.81) and west regions (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.33, 0.98) compared with the northeast and were more likely to live in metropolitan statistical areas (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.08, 2.13).
CONCLUSIONS: Over this 9-year period, the landscape of ureteropelvic junction obstruction treatment has changed dramatically. Further research is needed to understand why geographic factors were associated with receiving a minimally invasive pyeloplasty or an endopyelotomy.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the MarketScan® database, we identified adults 18 to 64 years old who underwent treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction between 2002 and 2010. Our primary outcome was ureteropelvic junction obstruction treatment (i.e., open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty, endopyelotomy). We fit a multilevel multinomial logistic regression model accounting for patients nested within providers to examine several factors associated with treatment.
RESULTS: Rates of minimally invasive pyeloplasty increased 10-fold, while rates of open pyeloplasty decreased by over 40%, and rates of endopyelotomy were relatively stable. Factors associated with receiving an open vs a minimally invasive pyeloplasty were largely similar. Compared with endopyelotomy, patients receiving minimally invasive pyeloplasty were less likely to be older (odds ratio [OR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95, 0.97) and live in the south (OR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33, 0.81) and west regions (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.33, 0.98) compared with the northeast and were more likely to live in metropolitan statistical areas (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.08, 2.13).
CONCLUSIONS: Over this 9-year period, the landscape of ureteropelvic junction obstruction treatment has changed dramatically. Further research is needed to understand why geographic factors were associated with receiving a minimally invasive pyeloplasty or an endopyelotomy.