TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing performance trends in laparoscopic nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery for localized renal tumors
AU - Smaldone, Marc C.
AU - Kutikov, Alexander
AU - Egleston, Brian
AU - Simhan, Jay
AU - Canter, Daniel J.
AU - Teper, Ervin
AU - Viterbo, Rosalia
AU - Chen, David Y.T.
AU - Greenberg, Richard E.
AU - Uzzo, Robert G.
N1 - Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2012/8
Y1 - 2012/8
N2 - Objective: To assess the impact of laparoscopy on usage of partial nephrectomy (PN) by comparing national usage trends in patients undergoing surgery for localized renal tumors. Methods: Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we retrospectively examined trends in procedure usage from 1995 to 2007 for patients undergoing surgery for localized (stage I/II) renal masses. Procedures were classified as open radical nephrectomy (ORN), laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN), open partial nephrectomy (OPN), and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). Patients were further stratified by tumor size (≤4 cm, >4- ≤7 cm, >7 cm). Data were primarily analyzed using logistic regressions. Results: Patients (n = 11,689, mean age 74.4 ± 5.7 years, 56% male) with a mean tumor size of 4.7 ± 3.3 cm met the inclusion criteria. From 1995 to 2007, ORN rates decreased and for each year successive year patients were more likely to be treated with OPN (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.19), LRN (OR 1.44, CI 1.41-1.47), and LPN (OR 1.75, CI 1.68-1.83). Although the increased usage of OPN (7.5% vs 13.6%, P <.001) and LPN (0% vs 14.2%, P <.001) reached statistical significance, this was offset by a marked increase in LRN over the same time period (3.0% vs 43.0%, P <.001). Conclusion: Despite increasing emphasis on nephron preservation, PN usage rates remain low. Compared with a 40% increase in LRN, use of PN increased by only 20% from 1995 to 2007. As a result, 72% of identified Medicare beneficiaries with localized tumors were managed with radical nephrectomy (RN) in 2007. The trade-off of minimally invasive surgery for nephron preservation may have adverse long-term consequences.
AB - Objective: To assess the impact of laparoscopy on usage of partial nephrectomy (PN) by comparing national usage trends in patients undergoing surgery for localized renal tumors. Methods: Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we retrospectively examined trends in procedure usage from 1995 to 2007 for patients undergoing surgery for localized (stage I/II) renal masses. Procedures were classified as open radical nephrectomy (ORN), laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN), open partial nephrectomy (OPN), and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). Patients were further stratified by tumor size (≤4 cm, >4- ≤7 cm, >7 cm). Data were primarily analyzed using logistic regressions. Results: Patients (n = 11,689, mean age 74.4 ± 5.7 years, 56% male) with a mean tumor size of 4.7 ± 3.3 cm met the inclusion criteria. From 1995 to 2007, ORN rates decreased and for each year successive year patients were more likely to be treated with OPN (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.19), LRN (OR 1.44, CI 1.41-1.47), and LPN (OR 1.75, CI 1.68-1.83). Although the increased usage of OPN (7.5% vs 13.6%, P <.001) and LPN (0% vs 14.2%, P <.001) reached statistical significance, this was offset by a marked increase in LRN over the same time period (3.0% vs 43.0%, P <.001). Conclusion: Despite increasing emphasis on nephron preservation, PN usage rates remain low. Compared with a 40% increase in LRN, use of PN increased by only 20% from 1995 to 2007. As a result, 72% of identified Medicare beneficiaries with localized tumors were managed with radical nephrectomy (RN) in 2007. The trade-off of minimally invasive surgery for nephron preservation may have adverse long-term consequences.
KW - Aged
KW - Aged, 80 and over
KW - Female
KW - Humans
KW - Kidney Neoplasms/surgery
KW - Laparoscopy
KW - Male
KW - Nephrectomy/methods
KW - Nephrons
KW - Retrospective Studies
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84864622785
U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2012.02.067
DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2012.02.067
M3 - Article
C2 - 22704174
SN - 0090-4295
VL - 80
SP - 286
EP - 292
JO - Urology
JF - Urology
IS - 2
ER -