Retrograde Stent with External String for Pediatric Robotic Pyeloplasty: Does It Reduce Cost and Complications?

Overview

Journal J Robot Surg

Publisher Springer

Specialties Biotechnology
General Surgery

Date 2022 Apr 29

PMID 35488080

Authors

Adam J Rensing

Benjamin M Whittam

Konrad M Szymanski

William E Bennett Jr

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP) is a mainstay in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in children. At our institution, to limit planned operating rooms visits we have placed a ureteral stent with an external string (SWES) immediately prior to RAP. In this study, we sought to quantify the operative time, complications, and costs associated with this approach compared to the traditional approach, requiring subsequent stent removal in the operating room. We hypothesized the SWES cohort would have decreased cost, yet with similar operative time and complications. We retrospectively collected all RAPs performed at our institution using the SWES approach (Aug 2012-July 2017). We excluded those with a redo pyeloplasty, and/or a percutaneous nephrostomy tube for post-operative drainage. We collected 30-day costs linked to the patients' MRN using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database. We compared 30-day healthare costs for all patients following RAP. We compared our SWES group to a national cohort of all pediatric RAP during the same time period. Lastly, we sent an anonymous, electronic survey to urologists of all PHIS institutions to identify the predominant postoperative drainage, nationally. Within our institution, we reviewed all those treated with SWES (n = 85) (Table 1). The median 30-day cost was $10,548 among those with SWES (Table 2). This was significantly less than the overall, national cohort of all pediatric RAP during the same period ($14,119, p < 0.001). There was a 15.5 % rate of unplanned return to the hospital in the SWES group. Of those unplanned returns, 8.2 % (7/85) had unplanned return for a procedure (3 for unplanned stent removal, 2 for nephrostomy tube for persistent obstruction, 1 for omental hernia, and 1 for stent replacement). With a 42.5 % (37/87) response rate, our nationwide survey found 84.6 % primarily leave stents WITHOUT a string, 7.7 % left nephrostomy tubes, and 7.7 % stents with strings. During pediatric RAP, placement of a SWES takes little time, carries a risk of unplanned visit to the operating room, saves the patient a certain, second anesthetic for stent removal, and amounts to a cost savings of approximately 25 %.

References

Mahida J, Cooper J, Herz D, Diefenbach K, Deans K, Minneci P . Utilization and costs associated with robotic surgery in children. J Surg Res. 2015; 199(1):169-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.04.087. View

Varda B, Wang Y, Chung B, Lee R, Kurtz M, Nelson C . Has the robot caught up? National trends in utilization, perioperative outcomes, and cost for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty in the United States from 2003 to 2015. J Pediatr Urol. 2018; 14(4):336.e1-336.e8. PMC: 6105565. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2017.12.010. View

Sorensen M, Delostrinos C, Johnson M, Grady R, Lendvay T . Comparison of the learning curve and outcomes of robotic assisted pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2011; 185(6 Suppl):2517-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.01.021. View

Bennett Jr W, Whittam B, Szymanski K, Rink R, Cain M, Carroll A . Validated cost comparison of open vs. robotic pyeloplasty in American children's hospitals. J Robot Surg. 2016; 11(2):201-206. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-016-0645-1. View

Gargollo P . Hidden incision endoscopic surgery: description of technique, parental satisfaction and applications. J Urol. 2011; 185(4):1425-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.054. View

Akhavan A, Merguerian P, Larison C, Goldin A, Shnorhavorian M . Trends in the Rates of Pediatric Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction over 19 Years: A PHIS Database Study. Adv Urol. 2014; 2014:142625. PMC: 4052929. DOI: 10.1155/2014/142625. View

Routh J, Graham D, Estrada C, Nelson C . Contemporary use of nephron-sparing surgery for children with malignant renal tumors at freestanding children's hospitals. Urology. 2011; 78(2):422-6. PMC: 3152612. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.12.048. View

Brown C, Sebastiao Y, Zann A, McLeod D, DaJusta D . Utilization of robotics for retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection in pediatric and non-pediatric hospitals. J Robot Surg. 2020; 14(6):865-870. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-020-01066-7. View

Vemulakonda V, Wilcox D, Crombleholme T, Bronsert M, Kempe A . Factors associated with age at pyeloplasty in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Pediatr Surg Int. 2015; 31(9):871-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00383-015-3748-2. View

10.

Godebu E, Palazzi K, Bush R, Marietti S, Chiang G . National risk factors and estimated costs for redo ureteroneocystostomy after pediatric renal transplant. Pediatr Transplant. 2015; 19(5):484-91. DOI: 10.1111/petr.12522. View

11.

Chan Y, Durbin-Johnson B, Sturm R, Kurzrock E . Outcomes after pediatric open, laparoscopic, and robotic pyeloplasty at academic institutions. J Pediatr Urol. 2017; 13(1):49.e1-49.e6. PMC: 5353856. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.08.029. View

12.

Sturm R, Chandrasekar T, Durbin-Johnson B, Kurzrock E . Urinary diversion during and after pediatric pyeloplasty: a population based analysis of more than 2,000 patients. J Urol. 2014; 192(1):214-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.01.089. View

13.

Chan Y, Rosoklija I, Shannon R, Singal A, DOro A, Meade P . Urinary Tract Infection After Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Are Urine Cultures and Antibiotics Helpful?. Urology. 2020; 148:235-242. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.09.054. View

14.

Seideman C, Sleeper J, Lotan Y . Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2012; 26(8):1044-8. DOI: 10.1089/end.2012.0026. View

15.

Varda B, Johnson E, Clark C, Chung B, Nelson C, Chang S . National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2014; 191(4):1090-5. PMC: 4154938. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.10.077. View

16.

Kawal T, Srinivasan A, Shrivastava D, Chu D, Van Batavia J, Weiss D . Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Does age matter?. J Pediatr Urol. 2018; 14(6):540.e1-540.e6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.04.023. View

17.

Chu D, Shrivastava D, Van Batavia J, Bowen D, Tong C, Long C . Outcomes of externalized pyeloureteral versus internal ureteral stent in pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol. 2018; 14(5):450.e1-450.e6. PMC: 6221998. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.04.012. View

18.

Silva M, Levy A, Finkelstein J, Van Batavia J, Casale P . Is peri-operative urethral catheter drainage enough? The case for stentless pediatric robotic pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol. 2015; 11(4):175.e1-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2015.06.003. View

19.

Liu X, Huang C, Guo Y, Yue Y, Hong J . Comparison of DJ stented, external stented and stent-less procedures for pediatric pyeloplasty: A network meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2019; 68:126-133. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.07.001. View

20.

Nelson C, Park J, Dunn R, Wei J . Contemporary trends in surgical correction of pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction: data from the nationwide inpatient sample. J Urol. 2004; 173(1):232-6. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000148439.22885.b4. View