Background and purpose

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction is a common condition that can be treated with open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty, and endopyelotomy. While all these treatments are effective, the extent to which they are used is unclear. We sought to examine the dissemination of these treatments.

Patients and methods

Using the MarketScan^® database, we identified adults 18 to 64 years old who underwent treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction between 2002 and 2010. Our primary outcome was ureteropelvic junction obstruction treatment (i.e., open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty, endopyelotomy). We fit a multilevel multinomial logistic regression model accounting for patients nested within providers to examine several factors associated with treatment.

Results

Rates of minimally invasive pyeloplasty increased 10-fold, while rates of open pyeloplasty decreased by over 40%, and rates of endopyelotomy were relatively stable. Factors associated with receiving an open vs a minimally invasive pyeloplasty were largely similar. Compared with endopyelotomy, patients receiving minimally invasive pyeloplasty were less likely to be older (odds ratio [OR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95, 0.97) and live in the south (OR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33, 0.81) and west regions (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.33, 0.98) compared with the northeast and were more likely to live in metropolitan statistical areas (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.08, 2.13).

Conclusions

Over this 9-year period, the landscape of ureteropelvic junction obstruction treatment has changed dramatically. Further research is needed to understand why geographic factors were associated with receiving a minimally invasive pyeloplasty or an endopyelotomy.

Objective

To examine the effectiveness of the 3 primary treatments for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (ie, open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty, and endopyelotomy) as assessed by failure rates.

Materials and methods

Using MarketScan data, we identified adults (ages 18-64 years) who underwent treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction between 2002 and 2010. Our primary outcome was failure (ie, need for a secondary procedure). We fit a Cox proportional hazards model to examine the effects of different patient, regional, and provider characteristics on treatment failure. We then implemented a survival analysis framework to examine the failure-free probability for each treatment.

Results

We identified 1125 minimally invasive pyeloplasties, 775 open pyeloplasties, and 1315 endopyelotomies with failure rates of 7%, 9%, and 15%, respectively. Compared with endopyelotomy, minimally invasive pyeloplasty was associated with a lower risk of treatment failure (adjusted hazards ratio [aHR] 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.69). Minimally invasive and open pyeloplasties had similar failure rates. Compared with open pyeloplasty, endopyelotomy was associated with a higher risk of treatment failure (aHR 1.78; 95% CI, 1.33-2.37). The average length of stay was 2.7 days for minimally invasive pyeloplasty and 4.2 days for open pyeloplasty (P <.001).

Conclusion

Endopyelotomy has the highest failure rate, yet it remains a common treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Future research should examine to what extent patients and physicians are driving the use of endopyelotomy.

Background and purpose

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction is a common urologic condition that accounts for approximately $12 million in inpatient spending annually. Few studies have assessed the costs related to treatment. We sought to examine the cost of care for patients treated for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Patients and methods

We used the MarketScan^® database to identify adults from 18 to 64 years old treated with minimally invasive pyeloplasty, open pyeloplasty, and endopyelotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction between 2002 and 2010. Our primary outcome was total expenditures related to the surgical episode, defined as the period from 30 days prior until 30 days after the index surgery. We fit a multinomial linear regression model to evaluate cost of the surgical episode, adjusting for age, gender, comorbidity, benefit plan type, and region of residence.

Results

We identified 1251 endopyelotomies, 717 open pyeloplasties, and 1048 minimally invasive pyeloplasties. The adjusted mean costs were $16,379 for endopyelotomy, $22,421 for open pyeloplasty, and $22,843 for minimally invasive pyeloplasty (p < 0.0001, ANCOVA). Both open and minimally invasive pyeloplasties were more costly than endopyelotomy (both p < 0.0001, comparison between groups). However, the cost of open and minimally invasive pyeloplasties was similar (p = 0.57, comparison between groups).

Conclusions

Among the three treatments, endopyelotomy was the least expensive in the immediate perioperative period. Open and minimally invasive pyeloplasties were similar in cost, but both more expensive than endopyelotomies. The similar cost between the two pyeloplasty approaches provides additional evidence that minimally invasive pyeloplasty should be considered the standard treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.