Comparison of 90-day re-admission rates between open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP) and robotassisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP)

Shiu Dong Chung, Joseph J. Kelle, Chao Yuan Huang, Yi Hua Chen, Herng Ching Lin

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻文章

16 引文 (Scopus)

摘要

OBJECTIVE • To examine the risk of 90-day re-admission among patients undergoing retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in Taiwan. PATIENTS AND METHODS • We identified 2741 hospitalised patients who underwent a RP. Of these 2741 cases, 1773 patients underwent RRP, 694 LRP, and 274 RALP. • We performed a conditional (fixedeffect) logistic regression model to explore the odds of 90-day re-admission from RP among patients undergoing RRP, LRP, and RALP. RESULTS • In all, 257 of the 2741 (9.4%) sampled subjects were re-admitted ≤ 90 days of the index RP. • Patients undergoing a RALP had a significantly lower incidence rate of 90-day re-admission than patients undergoing a RRP or LRP (3.6% vs 10.7% vs 8.2%, P <0.001). • Compared with patients undergoing a RRP, the odds ratio (OR) of 90-day re-admission for patients undergoing a RALP was only 0.35 (95% confidence interval [ CI ] 0.19-0.68) after adjusting for patient age, geographic region, year of surgery, Charlson Co-morbidity Index score, and surgeon age and the number of RP cases/year. • However, there was no significant difference in the odds of being re-admitted ≤ 90 days of RP between patients undergoing a LRP and RRP. • The adjusted odds of 90-day re-admission for patients undergoing a RALP were 0.46 (95% CI 0.23-0.94) those of patients undergoing a LRP. CONCLUSIONS • Our study shows that patients undergoing a RALP had a lower adjusted risk of 90-day re-admission than patients undergoing RRP. However, no significant differences were identified between LRP and RRP.
原文英語
期刊BJU International
110
發行號11 C
DOIs
出版狀態已發佈 - 十二月 2012

指紋

Prostatectomy
Patient Admission
Logistic Models
Confidence Intervals
Taiwan

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

引用此文

@article{05e82b4815a84b94b8158db6d7061bf4,
title = "Comparison of 90-day re-admission rates between open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP) and robotassisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP)",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE • To examine the risk of 90-day re-admission among patients undergoing retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in Taiwan. PATIENTS AND METHODS • We identified 2741 hospitalised patients who underwent a RP. Of these 2741 cases, 1773 patients underwent RRP, 694 LRP, and 274 RALP. • We performed a conditional (fixedeffect) logistic regression model to explore the odds of 90-day re-admission from RP among patients undergoing RRP, LRP, and RALP. RESULTS • In all, 257 of the 2741 (9.4{\%}) sampled subjects were re-admitted ≤ 90 days of the index RP. • Patients undergoing a RALP had a significantly lower incidence rate of 90-day re-admission than patients undergoing a RRP or LRP (3.6{\%} vs 10.7{\%} vs 8.2{\%}, P <0.001). • Compared with patients undergoing a RRP, the odds ratio (OR) of 90-day re-admission for patients undergoing a RALP was only 0.35 (95{\%} confidence interval [ CI ] 0.19-0.68) after adjusting for patient age, geographic region, year of surgery, Charlson Co-morbidity Index score, and surgeon age and the number of RP cases/year. • However, there was no significant difference in the odds of being re-admitted ≤ 90 days of RP between patients undergoing a LRP and RRP. • The adjusted odds of 90-day re-admission for patients undergoing a RALP were 0.46 (95{\%} CI 0.23-0.94) those of patients undergoing a LRP. CONCLUSIONS • Our study shows that patients undergoing a RALP had a lower adjusted risk of 90-day re-admission than patients undergoing RRP. However, no significant differences were identified between LRP and RRP.",
keywords = "Epidemiology, Radical prostatectomy, Retropubic radical prostatectomy",
author = "Chung, {Shiu Dong} and Kelle, {Joseph J.} and Huang, {Chao Yuan} and Chen, {Yi Hua} and Lin, {Herng Ching}",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11183.x",
language = "English",
volume = "110",
journal = "BJU International",
issn = "1464-4096",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "11 C",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of 90-day re-admission rates between open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP) and robotassisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP)

AU - Chung, Shiu Dong

AU - Kelle, Joseph J.

AU - Huang, Chao Yuan

AU - Chen, Yi Hua

AU - Lin, Herng Ching

PY - 2012/12

Y1 - 2012/12

N2 - OBJECTIVE • To examine the risk of 90-day re-admission among patients undergoing retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in Taiwan. PATIENTS AND METHODS • We identified 2741 hospitalised patients who underwent a RP. Of these 2741 cases, 1773 patients underwent RRP, 694 LRP, and 274 RALP. • We performed a conditional (fixedeffect) logistic regression model to explore the odds of 90-day re-admission from RP among patients undergoing RRP, LRP, and RALP. RESULTS • In all, 257 of the 2741 (9.4%) sampled subjects were re-admitted ≤ 90 days of the index RP. • Patients undergoing a RALP had a significantly lower incidence rate of 90-day re-admission than patients undergoing a RRP or LRP (3.6% vs 10.7% vs 8.2%, P <0.001). • Compared with patients undergoing a RRP, the odds ratio (OR) of 90-day re-admission for patients undergoing a RALP was only 0.35 (95% confidence interval [ CI ] 0.19-0.68) after adjusting for patient age, geographic region, year of surgery, Charlson Co-morbidity Index score, and surgeon age and the number of RP cases/year. • However, there was no significant difference in the odds of being re-admitted ≤ 90 days of RP between patients undergoing a LRP and RRP. • The adjusted odds of 90-day re-admission for patients undergoing a RALP were 0.46 (95% CI 0.23-0.94) those of patients undergoing a LRP. CONCLUSIONS • Our study shows that patients undergoing a RALP had a lower adjusted risk of 90-day re-admission than patients undergoing RRP. However, no significant differences were identified between LRP and RRP.

AB - OBJECTIVE • To examine the risk of 90-day re-admission among patients undergoing retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in Taiwan. PATIENTS AND METHODS • We identified 2741 hospitalised patients who underwent a RP. Of these 2741 cases, 1773 patients underwent RRP, 694 LRP, and 274 RALP. • We performed a conditional (fixedeffect) logistic regression model to explore the odds of 90-day re-admission from RP among patients undergoing RRP, LRP, and RALP. RESULTS • In all, 257 of the 2741 (9.4%) sampled subjects were re-admitted ≤ 90 days of the index RP. • Patients undergoing a RALP had a significantly lower incidence rate of 90-day re-admission than patients undergoing a RRP or LRP (3.6% vs 10.7% vs 8.2%, P <0.001). • Compared with patients undergoing a RRP, the odds ratio (OR) of 90-day re-admission for patients undergoing a RALP was only 0.35 (95% confidence interval [ CI ] 0.19-0.68) after adjusting for patient age, geographic region, year of surgery, Charlson Co-morbidity Index score, and surgeon age and the number of RP cases/year. • However, there was no significant difference in the odds of being re-admitted ≤ 90 days of RP between patients undergoing a LRP and RRP. • The adjusted odds of 90-day re-admission for patients undergoing a RALP were 0.46 (95% CI 0.23-0.94) those of patients undergoing a LRP. CONCLUSIONS • Our study shows that patients undergoing a RALP had a lower adjusted risk of 90-day re-admission than patients undergoing RRP. However, no significant differences were identified between LRP and RRP.

KW - Epidemiology

KW - Radical prostatectomy

KW - Retropubic radical prostatectomy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84873266825&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84873266825&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11183.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11183.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 22540425

AN - SCOPUS:84873266825

VL - 110

JO - BJU International

JF - BJU International

SN - 1464-4096

IS - 11 C

ER -