Patient safety and the diffusion of surgical innovations: a national analysis of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy
- First Online:
There are scant data on patient safety and the national diffusion of surgical innovations. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) provides an apt model for population-based analyses of patient safety and the propagation of complex surgical innovations.
In the nationwide inpatient sample, we identified patients undergoing partial nephrectomy for renal tumors from 1998 to 2009 and utilized patient safety indicators (PSI) to measure preventable adverse outcomes.
Of the cases, 68,713 (87 %) were OPN and 9,842 (13 %) were LPN. The prevalence of LPN increased more than threefold from 2006 to 2009. Compared to open partial nephrectomy (OPN), LPN patients were more likely to be younger (p = 0.022), have lower Charlson comorbidity scores (p = 0.002), and undergo surgery at urban (p < 0.001) and teaching (p = 0.02) hospitals. On multivariate analysis, LPN was associated with a 28 % decreased probability of any PSI (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] 0.72, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.55–0.96, p = 0.025), although this benefit did not attain significance when comparing robot-assisted LPN to OPN (ORadj 0.72, 95 % CI 0.44–1.16, p = 0.173). Overall mortality decreased from 0.9 % in 1998 to 0.1 % in 2009 (p < 0.001). There were no differences in adjusted mortality between LPN and OPN (p = 0.75).
During its initial national diffusion, LPN resulted in enhanced perioperative patient safety compared to OPN. Mortality for both LPN and OPN decreased over time. Further study is needed to elucidate and promote factors contributing to the safe diffusion of complex surgical innovations.
KeywordsKidney cancer Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy Open partial nephrectomy Partial nephrectomy Patient safety Patient safety indicator
Agency for healthcare research and quality
Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy
Nationwide inpatient sample
Open partial nephrectomy
Patient safety indicator
- 1.Institute of Medicine (2001) Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the twenty-first century. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 3.Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (1999) To err is human: building a safer health system. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 7.Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL, Clayman RV, Ahlering TE, Albala DM, Lee DI, Sundaram CP, Matin SF, Castle EP, Winfield HN, Gettman MT, Lee BR, Thomas R, Patel VR, Leveillee RJ, Wong C, Badlani GH, Rha KH, Eggener SE, Wiklund P, Mottrie A, Atug F, Kural AR, Joseph JV (2009) Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol 182:1126–1132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Coffey RM, Barrett M, Houchens B, Brady J, Moy E, Ho K, Andrews R (2008) Methods applying AHRQ quality indicators to Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Data for the Sixth National Healthcare Quality ReportGoogle Scholar
- 13.Stroup SP, Palazzi KL, Chang DC, Ward NT, Parsons JK (2012) Inpatient safety trends in laparoscopic and open nephrectomy for renal tumours. BJU Int. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11071.x
- 16.Gladwell M (2000) The tipping point: how little things can make a big difference. Little, Brown, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 17.Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar