No Differences in Population-based Readmissions After Open and Robotic-assisted Radical Cystectomy: Implications for Post-discharge Care - 14/11/18
, Bruce L. Jacobs c, Jeffrey S. Montgomery b, Alon Z. Weizer b, Todd M. Morgan b, Khaled S. Hafez b, Cheryl T. Lee b, Benjamin Y. Li a, Hye Sung Min a, Chang He a, Scott M. Gilbert d, Jonathan E. Helm e, Mariel S. Lavieri f, Brent K. Hollenbeck a, b, Ted A. Skolarus a, b, gAbstract |
Objective |
To inform whether readmission reduction strategies should consider surgical approach, we examined readmission differences between open and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) using population-based data.
Methods |
We identified patients who underwent cystectomy between January 2010 and September 2013 based on International Classification of Diseases-9th edition codes and administrative claims from a large, national US health insurer (Clinformatics Data Mart Database, OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, MN). We assessed post-discharge health system utilization and tested for differences in readmissions after the 2 surgical approaches.
Results |
We identified 935 patients treated with cystectomy: open = 785 (84%) and RARC = 150 (16%). Patients undergoing RARC were slightly older, male, had more ileal conduit urinary reconstruction, and less need for intensive care. Index length of stay was shorter for RARC than for open surgery (7 days vs 8 days, P < .001). However, we found no differences in 30-day readmission rates (24% open vs 29% RARC, P = .26) or other readmission parameters, including readmission length of stay (5 days open vs 4 days RARC, P = .32), emergency department use (22% open vs 24% RARC, P = .86), reasons for readmission, or timing of first outpatient visits (11.5 days open vs 9 days RARC, P = .41). For both approaches, the majority of patients were readmitted within 2 weeks.
Conclusion |
The surgical approach to cystectomy does not appear to impact readmissions. Strategies to reduce the readmission burden after cystectomy do not need to consider surgical approach but should focus on timing of medical contacts.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| Financial Disclosure: The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests. |
|
| Funding Support: Tudor Borza received funding from National Cancer Institute T32-CA180984. Bruce L. Jacobs received funding from National Institutes of Health institutional KL2 award KL2TR001856, GEMSSTAR Award R03AG048091. Brent K. Hollenbeck received funding from National Institute on Aging R01-AG-048071. Ted A. Skolarus received funding from VA Health Services Research and Development CDA 12-171; Lavieri: National Science Foundation CMMI-1552545. |
Vol 104
P. 77-83 - juin 2017 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
