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.

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.