Primary pyeloplasty for uretero-pelvic obstruction in the USA adult population with or without double-J indwelling ureteral stents. Insurance claims data on contemporary time to removal trends, perioperative complications, health care costs, and re-intervention rates.

Abstract

Background: Using a large population-based dataset, we primarily sought to compare postoperative complications, health-care expenditures, and re-intervention rates between patients diagnosed with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) undergoing stented vs. non-stented pyeloplasty. The secondary objective was to investigate factors that influence the timing of DJ stent removal.

Methods: Patients ≥18 years old with UPJO treated with primary open or minimally-invasive pyeloplasty were identified using the Merative™ Marketscan^® Databases between 2007-2021. Multivariable modeling was implemented to investigate the association between Double-J (DJ) stent placement and post-pyeloplasty complications, hospital costs, and re-intervention rates and the role of the perioperative predictors on time to DJ stent removal. Subgroup analyses stratified by ureteral stenting duration were additionally performed.

Results: Out of 4872 patients who underwent primary pyeloplasty, 4154 (85.3%) had DJ placement. Postoperative complications were rare (N.=218, 4.47%) and not associated with ureteral stenting (odds ratio [OR]: 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-1.12). The median cost for in-hospital charges was $21,775, with DJ stent placement independently increasing the median aggregate amount (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.09-1.53). Overall, re-interventions were performed in 21.18% of patients, with DJ stenting found to be protective (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66-0.96). Higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, longer hospital stay, and open surgical approach were independent predictors for prolonged DJ stenting time to removal.

Conclusions: Our study suggests that patients undergoing stent-less pyeloplasty did have a higher rate of secondary procedures, but not higher complications when compared to those undergoing stented procedures. Concurrently, the non-stented approach is associated with decreased health-care expenditures, despite the increased rates of secondary procedures.