4.5 Article

Hospital volume in ureterorenoscopic stone treatment: 99 operations per year could increase the chance of a better outcomeresults of the German prospective multicentre BUSTER project

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages 743-749

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2431-3

Keywords

Urolithiasis; Ureterorenoscopy; Hospital volume; Annual caseload; Cut-off; Threshold

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundDespite the high utilisation of ureterorenoscopy (URS) in interventional stone treatment, there is little evidence of any link between annual hospital volume and outcome.MethodsFrom January to April 2015, data from 307 URS patients were prospectively recorded in the multicentre observational BUSTER-Trial (Benchmarks of ureterorenoscopic stone treatment-results in terms of complications, quality of life, and stone-free rates). The best threshold value for annual hospital volume with an independent effect on the outcome (measured on stone-free and complication rates) of our study group was established with logistic regression.ResultsIn 38.4% of cases of renal and 61.6% of ureteral stones, median stone size was 6mm with an interquartile range (IQR) of 4-8mm. The annual URS rate in the 14 participating hospitals ranged from 77 to 333 (median 144; IQR 109-208). The binary endpoint as a combination of completely stone-free or residual fragments small enough to pass spontaneously and a maximum complication severity of Clavien-Dindo grade 1 was attained in 234/252 (92.9%) cases with a hospital volume of 99URS compared with 43/55 (78.2%) in <99URS (p=0.002). Adjusted for patient-, stone- and physician-related factors, an annual hospital URS volume of 99 increases the chance of an optimum outcome (OR=3.92; 95% CI 1.46-10.51; p=0.007).ConclusionsAn independent effect of URS hospital volume on outcome quality in the 14 participating hospitals was demonstrated. Threshold values for annual case numbers should be scientifically established irrespective of the considered procedure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available