Abstract
This study aims to assess the impact of facility characteristics on measures of surgical quality (positive surgical margin rates and lymph-node yield) in patients undergoing robot-assisted (RARC) versus open (ORC) radical cystectomy using the National Cancer Database. Patients who received RC between the years of 2010-2013 were stratified according to surgery type (ORC vs. RARC), and corresponding patient and facility-level variables (facility type and volume) were assessed. Logistic regression models for procedure type, positive surgical margins (PSMs), and LN dissection (LND) rates were estimated. Radical cystectomies (ORC = 13,236, RARC = 3687) were performed more often in academic centers (58.3%) compared to community centers (31.6%). As facility volume increased, centers performed more LNDs during ORCs (p = 0.03) and the number of nodes retrieved increased in both ORC and RARC (ORC p < 0.001; RARC p < 0.0001). Increased facility volume also resulted in significantly fewer PSMs within the RARC cohort (p = 0.01). Comparison of ORC and RARC within each facility type cohort identified improved pathological metrics for RARC with fewer PSMs (p = 0.001) as well as increased LNDs (p < 0.0001) and median number of LNs retrieved (p < 0.0001), which suggests that RARC may facilitate comparative outcomes in community centers and academic centers. Overall, higher facility volume and robot-assisted surgery resulted in more favorable pathologic metrics compared to lower facility volume and ORC.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.