Premium
The British Association of Urological Surgeons ( BAUS ) radical prostatectomy audit 2014/2015 – an update on current practice and outcomes by centre and surgeon case‐volume
Author(s) -
Khadhouri Sinan,
Miller Catherine,
Fowler Sarah,
Hounsome Luke,
McNeill Alan,
Adshead Jim,
McGrath John S.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/bju.14156
Subject(s) - medicine , audit , laparoscopic radical prostatectomy , prostatectomy , general surgery , urology , surgery , prostate , management , cancer , economics
Objectives To describe contemporary radical prostatectomy ( RP ) practice using the British Association of Urological Surgeons ( BAUS ) data and audit project and to observe differences in practice in relation to surgeon or centre case‐volume. Patients and Methods Data on 13 920 RP procedures performed by 179 surgeons across 86 centres were recorded on the BAUS data and audit platform between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2015. This equates to ~95% of total RP s performed over this period when compared to Hospital Episode Statistics ( HES ) data. Centre case‐volumes were categorised as ‘high’ (>200), ‘medium’ (100–200) and ‘low’ (<100); surgeon case‐volumes were categorised as ‘high’ (>100) and ‘low’ (<100). Differences in surgical practice and selected outcome measures were observed between groups. All data and volume categories were for the combined 2‐year period. Results The median number of RP s performed over the 2‐year period was 63.5 per surgeon and 164 per centre. Overall, surgical approach was robot‐assisted laparoscopic RP ( RALP ) in 65%, laparoscopic RP ( LRP ) in 23%, and open RP ( ORP ) in 12%. The dominant approach in high‐case‐volume centres and by high‐case‐volume surgeons was RALP (74.3% and 69.2%, respectively). There was a greater percentage of ORP s reported by low‐volume surgeons and centres when compared to higher volume equivalents. In all, 51.6% of all patients in this series underwent RP in high‐case‐volume centres using robot‐assisted surgery ( RAS ). High‐case‐volume surgeons performed nerve‐sparing ( NS ) procedures on 57.3% of their cases; low‐volume surgeons performing NS on 48.2%. Overall, lymph node dissection ( LND ) rates were very similar across the groups. An ‘extended’ LND was more commonly performed in high‐volume centres (22.1%). The median length of stay ( LOS ) was lowest in patients undergoing RALP at high‐volume centres (1 day) and highest in ORP across all volume categories (3–4 days). Reported pT 2 positive surgical margin ( PSM ) rate varied by technique, centre volume, and surgeon volume. In general, observed PSM rates were lower when RALP was the surgical approach (14.4%) and when high‐volume surgeons were compared to low‐volume surgeons (13.6% vs 17.7%). Transfusion rates were highest in ORP across all centres and surgeons (2.96–4.49%) compared to techniques using a minimally‐invasive approach (0.25–2.41%). Training cases ranged from 0.5% in low‐volume centres to 6.0% in high‐volume centres. Conclusions Compliance with data registration for centres and surgeons performing RP is high in the present series. Most RP s were performed in high‐case‐volume centres and by high‐case‐volume surgeons, with the most common approaches being minimally invasive and specifically RAS . High‐case‐volume centres and surgeons reported higher rates of extended LND and training cases. Higher‐case‐volume surgeons reported lower pT 2 PSM rates, whilst the most marked differences in transfusion rates and LOS were seen when ORP was compared to minimally invasive approaches. Caution must be applied when interpreting these differences on the basis of this being registry data – causality cannot be assumed.