ABSTRACT
Objective(s)
To report the effect of surgeon and facility volume on outcomes of transurethral resection
of the prostate (TURP) and laser treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
We also investigate disparities by identifying demographic predictors of receipt of
treatment at high-volume facilities.
Methods
We used New York State Department of Health Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative
System (SPARCS) data. We included 18,041 (41.4%) and 25,577 (58.6%) adult patients
that underwent TURP and laser procedures in the outpatient setting between January
2005 and December 2018, respectively. Average annual surgeon and facility volumes
were broken down by tertile. The effect of volume on short-term outcomes (30-day and
90-day readmission) was examined using mixed-effect logistic regression models. Cox-proportional-hazard
models were used to assess the association between volume and long-term stricture
development and reoperation. Demographic predictors of treatment at high-volume facilities
were assessed using multinomial logistic regression.
Results
High-volume facilities were more likely to offer laser procedures compared to low-volume
facilities. Higher facility and surgeon volume were associated with lower odds of
30 and 90-day readmissions compared to low-volume facilities. There was no difference
in reoperation and stricture development between surgeon volume groups. Medicaid insurance,
Hispanic ethnicity, and Black race were inversely associated with treatment at high-volume
facilities.
Conclusions
Higher surgeon and facility volumes were associated with lower odds of readmission.
Higher facility volume was associated with lower hazards of reoperation and developing
strictures. Medicaid insurance and non-white race were associated with lower odds
of treatment at high-volume facilities, highlighting racial and socioeconomic disparities
in access to high-volume BPH surgery facilities.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to UrologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
REFERENCES
- Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States.New England Journal of Medicine. 2003; 349: 2117-2127
- Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery.Jama. 1998; 280: 1747-1751
- Relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes: a systematic review of systematic reviews.Systematic reviews. 2016; 5: 1-15
- Systematic review of the volume–outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy.European urology focus. 2018; 4: 775-789
- Hospital volume is a determinant of postoperative complications, blood transfusion and length of stay after radical or partial nephrectomy.The Journal of urology. 2012; 187: 405-410
- Volume outcomes of cystectomy—is it the surgeon or the setting?.The Journal of urology. 2012; 188: 2139-2144
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between hospital/surgeon volume and outcome for radical cystectomy: an update for the ongoing debate.European urology. 2011; 59: 775-783
- A systematic review of the volume–outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy.European urology. 2013; 64: 786-798
- Effect of centralization on complex surgical care: A population-based case study of radical cystectomy.Canadian Urological Association Journal. 2020; 14: 91
- Value-based healthcare in urology: a collaborative review.European Urology. 2021; 79: 571-585
- Where are we with improving outcome guidance? An update on pelvic urological services in the NHS.Journal of Clinical Urology. 2017; 10: 29-33
- Impact of hospital volume and laser use on postoperative complications and in-hospital mortality in cases of benign prostate hyperplasia.The Journal of urology. 2011; 185: 2248-2253
- Hospital volume and mortality for 25 types of inpatient treatment in German hospitals: observational study using complete national data from 2009 to 2014.BMJ open. 2017; 7e016184
- Transurethral resection of the prostate with monopolar resectoscope: single-surgeon experience and long-term results of after 3589 procedures.Urology. 2011; 78: 1151-1155
- Does surgeon experience affect operative time, adverse events and continence outcomes in holmium laser enucleation of the prostate? A review of more than 1,000 cases.The Journal of Urology. 2017; 198: 663-670
- Safety and Efficacy of Outpatient Surgical Procedures for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Enlargement in New York State and California (2005-2016).The Journal of Urology. 2020; (10.1097/JU. 0000000000001401)
- Toward a consensus on centralization in surgery.Annals of surgery. 2018; 268: 712-724
- Ambulatory-based bladder outlet procedures offer significant cost savings and comparable 30-day outcomes relative to inpatient procedures.Journal of endourology. 2020; 34: 1248-1254
- Access denied: The relationship between patient insurance status and access to high-volume hospitals.Cancer. 2021; 127: 577-585
- Disparities in access to care at high-volume institutions for uro-oncologic procedures.Cancer. 2012; 118: 4421-4426
Article Info
Publication History
Accepted:
September 15,
2022
Received:
July 5,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofFootnotes
Declaration of interest statement: BC is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Olympus, Medeon Bio, Urovant, and Ferring. NB and KCZ are consultants and investigators for Boston Scientific, Olympus, and PROCEPT BioRobotics. DSE is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Olympus, Prodeon, PROCEPT BioRobotics, Urotronic, and Zenflow. All other authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.
Ethical compliance: N/A.
Author contributions: DDN: Data analysis, manuscript writing. DB: Data analysis, manuscript writing. LM: Data analysis, manuscript editing. MS: Manuscript editing. XZ: Data analysis, manuscript editing. JM: Data analysis, manuscript editing. KCZ: Manuscript editing. DSE: Manuscript editing. NB: Manuscript editing. BC: Project development, manuscript editing.
Disclaimer: The data used to produce this publication was provided by the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). However, the conclusions derived and views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the conclusions or views of NYSDOH. NYSDOH, its employees, officers, and agents make no representation, warranty, or guarantee as to the accuracy, completeness, currency, or suitability of the information provided here.
Funding source: No funding.
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
