Development of Indicators to assess Intermediate treatment-related Urinary Complications following Radical Prostatectomy
BAUS ePoster online library. Sujenthiran A. 06/30/16; 132012; P10-12
Mr. Arunan Sujenthiran
Mr. Arunan Sujenthiran
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.

You may also access this content "anytime, anywhere" with the Free MULTILEARNING App for iOS and Android
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Rate & Comment (0)
P10-12

Introduction

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a common treatment for localized prostate cancer. Data on incidence of intermediate treatment-related complications following RP are lacking. We developed indicators using Cancer Registry (CR) – Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) linked data to capture unplanned interventions following RP.

 

Patients & Methods

Men with prostate cancer were identified as having undergone RP if their HES record between 2008 and 2012 contained the “M61” Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) procedure code. Hospital admissions post-RP were interrogated for OPCS codes related to urinary complications. 3 sub-categories were determined (haematuria-, stricture- and incontinence-related) and validated with associated ICD-10 codes. Cumulative 2-year Kaplan-Meier rates were calculated for all urinary complications and the 3 sub-categories while logistic regression analysis was employed to evaluate predictors of urinary complications.

 

Results

17,552 men underwent RP over the study period, 16.5% of whom underwent at least one urological intervention within 2 years. Median time to first intervention was 111 days. 2-year incidence of experiencing either haematuria, stricture or an incontinence related complication was 12.0%, 6.8% and 0.9%, respectively. Charlson score ≥1 (OR 1.13(95%CI: 1.02-1.25), p=0.02), lower socio-economic status (OR 1.55(95%CI: 1.35-1.77), p<0.01) and length of stay for RP>3days (OR 1.66(95%CI: 1.53-1.80), p<0.01) significantly increased the likelihood of at least one urological intervention.

 

Conclusions

Approximately 1 in 6 men required an unplanned urological intervention within two years of RP. These data could be used to counsel patients regarding treatment-related complications while adjusted indicators could be used to assess variation in care.

P10-12

Introduction

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a common treatment for localized prostate cancer. Data on incidence of intermediate treatment-related complications following RP are lacking. We developed indicators using Cancer Registry (CR) – Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) linked data to capture unplanned interventions following RP.

 

Patients & Methods

Men with prostate cancer were identified as having undergone RP if their HES record between 2008 and 2012 contained the “M61” Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) procedure code. Hospital admissions post-RP were interrogated for OPCS codes related to urinary complications. 3 sub-categories were determined (haematuria-, stricture- and incontinence-related) and validated with associated ICD-10 codes. Cumulative 2-year Kaplan-Meier rates were calculated for all urinary complications and the 3 sub-categories while logistic regression analysis was employed to evaluate predictors of urinary complications.

 

Results

17,552 men underwent RP over the study period, 16.5% of whom underwent at least one urological intervention within 2 years. Median time to first intervention was 111 days. 2-year incidence of experiencing either haematuria, stricture or an incontinence related complication was 12.0%, 6.8% and 0.9%, respectively. Charlson score ≥1 (OR 1.13(95%CI: 1.02-1.25), p=0.02), lower socio-economic status (OR 1.55(95%CI: 1.35-1.77), p<0.01) and length of stay for RP>3days (OR 1.66(95%CI: 1.53-1.80), p<0.01) significantly increased the likelihood of at least one urological intervention.

 

Conclusions

Approximately 1 in 6 men required an unplanned urological intervention within two years of RP. These data could be used to counsel patients regarding treatment-related complications while adjusted indicators could be used to assess variation in care.

Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions

By clicking “Accept Terms & all Cookies” or by continuing to browse, you agree to the storing of third-party cookies on your device to enhance your user experience and agree to the user terms and conditions of this learning management system (LMS).

Cookie Settings
Accept Terms & all Cookies