MP75-20 HOW THE POLITICAL PARTY THAT HOLDS YOUR ELECTORATE DETERMINES IF YOUR PROSTATECTOMY IS VIA ROBOT OR OPEN SURGERY

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP75-20 HOW THE POLITICAL PARTY THAT HOLDS YOUR ELECTORATE DETERMINES IF YOUR PROSTATECTOMY IS VIA ROBOT OR OPEN SURGERY Anne Hong, Nathan Papa, Gregory Jack, Cliodhna Browne, and Damien Bolton Anne HongAnne Hong More articles by this author , Nathan PapaNathan Papa More articles by this author , Gregory JackGregory Jack More articles by this author , Cliodhna BrowneCliodhna Browne More articles by this author , and Damien BoltonDamien Bolton More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003349.20AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: In a nationalised health system it would be expected that surgical approach to cancer would be centralised, and that there would be minimal variation within a single city. Anecdotally however there seemed to be areas of our large city where fewer people were being treated by minimally invasive surgery for prostate cancer. We sought to objectify whether there were variations between electorates that were represented in the frequency of prostate cancer being treated by robotic vs open surgery. METHODS: All radical prostatectomies in the city of Melbourne Australia were identified for a 3 year period, coinciding with the electoral cycle for representatives from this state. The percentage of patients from each electorate who had treatment by robotic vs open radical prostatectomy was calculated. Electorates were then compared by the political party which was the incumbent in the seat. RESULTS: Marked variations in the frequency of robotic radical prostatectomy in a given electorate were apparent, with a range from 24% to 79%. Open radical prostatectomy was the inverse. These variations were however consistently in favour of robot assisted surgery in the seats held by the more conservative parties, and in favour of open surgery in those seats more aligned to the parties that aligned with the left of the political spectrum. CONCLUSIONS: Even in a nationalised healthcare system patients from electorates that have voted in a conservative representative are more likely to be treated with minimally invasive surgery than open surgery. Measures should be taken to correct this inequity and to provide the same standard of care to all members of the community regardless of where they live in a metropolitan area. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e1088 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Anne Hong More articles by this author Nathan Papa More articles by this author Gregory Jack More articles by this author Cliodhna Browne More articles by this author Damien Bolton More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...