Abstract
Purpose
Outcomes of radical prostatectomy are prone to publication bias, because most of the data originated from highly specialized centers. We assessed in-hospital outcomes of all radical prostatectomies in Germany from 2006 to 2013 focusing on caseload volume, surgical approach, and certification status.
Methods
We analyzed the nationwide German hospital billing data covering 221,331 radical prostatectomies from 2006 to 2013. Outcomes were in-hospital mortality, surgical revision, and transfusion rates and the length of stay. Multivariate models described the impact of these factors.
Results
The yearly number of radical prostatectomies declined from 28,374 to 21,850. While shares of all other approaches decreased, shares for robot-assisted prostatectomy increased from 0.6 to 25.2%. Hospitals with ≥100 cases a year reported lower in-hospital mortality with 0.08 versus 0.17% for hospitals with <50 cases a year. On multivariate analysis, the odds for an individual death were doubled in hospitals with <50 cases a year. All other factors showed no significant impact on mortality. Concerning blood transfusion, the surgical approach was the strongest predictor with minimally invasive surgery (26% of the odds of conventional surgery) followed by caseload volume. Surgical revision was frequent in hospitals with lower rates of minimally invasive approaches (OR 1.6) and smaller caseloads (OR 1.4). Length of stay was reduced by 3 days for caseloads ≥200 a year, 2 days with minimally invasive approaches, and 1 day in certified prostate cancer centers. Lacking clinical information is a major limitation.
Conclusions
Annual caseload volume of hospitals is the most important factor for improved in-hospital outcomes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- ORPE:
-
Retropubic radical prostatectomy
- LRPE:
-
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
- RRPE:
-
Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
- PRBC:
-
Packed red blood cells
- ICD:
-
International classification of diseases
- OPS:
-
Classification of Operations and Procedures
- Destatis:
-
German Federal Statistical Office
References
Huber J, Ihrig A, Yass M, Bruckner T, Peters T, Huber CG, Konyango B, Lozankovski N, Stredele RJ, Moll P, Schneider M, Pahernik S, Hohenfellner M (2013) Multimedia support for improving preoperative patient education: a randomized controlled trial using the example of radical prostatectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 20(1):15–23. doi:10.1245/s10434-012-2536-7
Chang SL, Kibel AS, Brooks JD, Chung BI (2015) The impact of robotic surgery on the surgical management of prostate cancer in the USA. BJU Int 115(6):929–936. doi:10.1111/bju.12850
Gandaglia G, Montorsi F, Karakiewicz PI, Sun M (2015) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer. Future Oncol 11(20):2767–2773. doi:10.2217/fon.15.169
Skarecky DW (2013) Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy after the first decade: surgical evolution or new paradigm. ISRN Urol 2013:157379. doi:10.1155/2013/157379
Thomas C, Neisius A, Roos FC, Hampel C, Thuroff JW (2015) Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urologe A 54(2):178–182. doi:10.1007/s00120-014-3665-3
Hu JC, Gandaglia G, Karakiewicz PI, Nguyen PL, Trinh QD, Shih YC, Abdollah F, Chamie K, Wright JL, Ganz PA, Sun M (2014) Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol 66(4):666–672. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.015
Trinh QD, Sammon J, Sun M, Ravi P, Ghani KR, Bianchi M, Jeong W, Shariat SF, Hansen J, Schmitges J, Jeldres C, Rogers CG, Peabody JO, Montorsi F, Menon M, Karakiewicz PI (2012) Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol 61(4):679–685. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.12.027
Wallerstedt A, Tyritzis SI, Thorsteinsdottir T, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Gustafsson O, Hugosson J, Bjartell A, Wilderang U, Wiklund NP, Steineck G, Haglind E (2015) Short-term results after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 67(4):660–670. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.036
Froehner M, Koch R, Leike S, Novotny V, Twelker L, Wirth MP (2013) Urinary tract-related quality of life after radical prostatectomy: open retropubic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic approach. Urol Int 90(1):36–40. doi:10.1159/000345320
Froehner M, Novotny V, Koch R, Leike S, Twelker L, Wirth MP (2013) Perioperative complications after radical prostatectomy: open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic approach. Urol Int 90(3):312–315. doi:10.1159/000345323
Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Wallerstedt A, Wilderang U, Thorsteinsdottir T, Lagerkvist M, Damber JE, Bjartell A, Hugosson J, Wiklund P, Steineck G (2015) Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol 68(2):216–225. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.029
Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Barry MJ, D’Amico AV, Weinberg AC, Keating NL (2009) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 302(14):1557–1564. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1451
Barocas DA, Mitchell R, Chang SS, Cookson MS (2010) Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 28(3):243–250. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.03.001
Cathcart P, Sridhara A, Ramachandran N, Briggs T, Nathan S, Kelly J (2015) Achieving quality assurance of prostate cancer surgery during reorganisation of cancer services. Eur Urol 68(1):22–29. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.028
Groeben C, Koch R, Baunacke M, Wirth MP, Huber J (2016) Robots drive the German radical prostatectomy market: a total population analysis from 2006 to 2013. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. doi:10.1038/pcan.2016.34
Basto M, Sathianathen N, Te Marvelde L, Ryan S, Goad J, Lawrentschuk N, Costello AJ, Moon DA, Heriot AG, Butler J, Murphy DG (2015) Patterns-of-care and health economic analysis of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Australian public health system. BJU Int 117(6):930–939. doi:10.1111/bju.13317
Evans SM, Millar JL, Frydenberg M, Murphy DG, Davis ID, Spelman T, Bolton DM, Giles GG, Dean J, Costello AJ, Frauman AG, Kearns PA, Day L, Daniels C, McNeill JJ (2014) Positive surgical margins: rate, contributing factors and impact on further treatment: findings from the prostate cancer registry. BJU Int 114(5):680–690. doi:10.1111/bju.12509
Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L, Dunglison N, Carter R, Williams S, Payton DJ, Perry-Keene J, Lavin MF, Gardiner RA (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 388(10049):1057–1066. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30592-X
Huber J, Groeben C, Wirth MP, Hoffmann F (2014) Minimum caseload requirements in urologic oncology: not without evidence from health services research. Urologe A 53(12):1753–1757. doi:10.1007/s00120-014-3706-y
Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Nguyen PL, Hu JC (2012) Hospital volume, utilization, costs and outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 187(5):1632–1637. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.12.071
National_Institute_for_Clinical_Excellence (2002) Guidance on cancer services: improving outcomes in urological cancersProstate cancer. Treatment for specific cancers
Laird A, Fowler S, Good DW, Stewart GD, Srinivasan V, Cahill D, Brewster SF, McNeill SA (2015) Contemporary practice and technique-related outcomes for radical prostatectomy in the UK: a report of national outcomes. BJU Int 115(5):753–763. doi:10.1111/bju.12866
Gilbert SM, Dunn RL, Miller DC, Daignault S, Ye Z, Hollenbeck BK (2008) Mortality after urologic cancer surgery: impact of non-index case volume. Urology 71(5):906–910. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.12.035
Fichtner J, Kowalski C, Wesselmann S, Albers P (2015) Indicator analysis of prostate cancer centers certified by the German cancer society 2015. Urologe A 54(11):1530–1536. doi:10.1007/s00120-015-3855-7
Kalble T, Fichtner J (2015) Treatment quality of prostate cancer centers: analysis of the 2014 annual report of the German cancer society. Urologe A 54(11):1523–1529. doi:10.1007/s00120-015-3994-x
Aggarwal A, Nossiter J, Cathcart P, van der Meulen J, Rashbass J, Clarke N, Payne H (2016) Organisation of prostate cancer services in the english national health service. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 28(8):482-489. doi:10.1016/j.clon.2016.02.004
Tawadros T, Burruni R, Herrera F, Codeluppi C, Zurkinden C, Meuwly JY, Lhermitte B, Berthold D (2013) Prostate cancer center: a multidisciplinary approach to accurately manage patients with prostate cancer. Rev Med Suisse 9(409):2270–2272, 2274
Stolzenburg JU, Kyriazis I, Fahlenbrach C, Gilfrich C, Gunster C, Jeschke E, Popken G, Weissbach L, von Zastrow C, Leicht H (2016) National trends and differences in morbidity among surgical approaches for radical prostatectomy in Germany. World J Urol. doi:10.1007/s00345-016-1813-7
Wirth MP, Huber J (2013) What really matters is rarely measured: outcome of routine care and patient-reported outcomes. Eur Urol 64(1):58–59. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.01.030
Acknowledgements
Funding
Med-Drive Grant of the Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden. (Grant-number: 60.356).
Data source
Research data centers of the federal and state statistical offices, DRG-statistics 2006 to 2013, own calculations. We thank Stefanie Uhrich for continuously supporting data retrieval.
Author contribution statement
CG was involved in the project development, data collection, analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing, revision and final approval of the manuscript, obtaining funding, RK was involved in statistics, data collection, revision and final approval of the manuscript, MB was involved in graphics, statistical analysis, revision and final approval of the manuscript, MPW was involved in the project development, revising the manuscript for critically important intellectual content, revision and final approval of the manuscript, supervision, and JH was involved in the conception and design of the manuscript, revising it for critically important intellectual content, revision and final approval of the manuscript, obtaining funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest.
Human and animal participant
No research involving human participants or animals was performed.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Groeben, C., Koch, R., Baunacke, M. et al. High volume is the key for improving in-hospital outcomes after radical prostatectomy: a total population analysis in Germany from 2006 to 2013. World J Urol 35, 1045–1053 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1982-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1982-4