(474) Trends and Costs of Ambulatory vs Inpatient Penile Prosthesis Placement
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Current literature is limited in assessing nationwide trends of penile prosthesis (PP) placement in the United States largely due to a lack of data on outpatient PP placement. Particularly no nationwide comparison of ambulatory surgery center (ASC) versus inpatient hospital (IH) PP placement has been published. Objective Our objective is to determine the trends of PP placement in ASCs vs IHs utilizing representative nationwide data. Additionally, we examined patient demographics that are associated with the setting for PP placement. Methods Inpatient and outpatient encounters for PP placement between 2016 and 2019 were analyzed using data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample (NASS) from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). These are the largest publicly available inpatient and ambulatory surgery databases available in the United States. PP operations were identified by CPT and ICD-10-PCS codes. Subsequent analysis was performed using the established weighting provided by the HCUP, which utilizes stratified cluster sampling to create national estimates. Comparisons of demographics were performed using t-tests and chi-square tests with a p-value for significance <0.05. Results Over the study period, there were 67,722 PP placements in the United States. The percentage placed in ASCs was 93.1%. In 2016, 16,290 PP placements occurred, of which 92.3% were placed in ASCs. Comparatively in 2019, there was a 7.3% increase (17,473) in the number of PP placements, with 94.5% placed in ASCs (p<0.01). Over the study period, 33,008 PP placements were performed in the South (93.8% ASCs), 12,481 in the Midwest (94.6% ASCs), 12,192 in the Northeast (92.4% ASCs), and 10,040 in the West (90.1% ASCs, p<0.01). The average age of patients receiving a PP placement was 64.4 in ASCs compared with 62.5 in IHs (p<0.01). The average cost associated with PP placement in ASCs was $25,935, about half the cost of inpatient settings, which averaged $51,594 (p<0.01). Of all PP implants, the primary payer was medicare for 57.1% (38,660; 93.1% ASCs), medicaid for 4.4% (2980; 86.6% ASCs), private for 33.6% (22,778; 94.3% ASCs), and self-pay for 1.1% (768; 90.9% ASCs, p <0.01). Conclusions Our results suggest that the number of PP placements is consistently rising each year, with an increasing majority of PP placements performed in ASCs. The procedure costs roughly half on average when performed in ASCs compared to IHs. Further investigation is needed to compare complication rates and outcomes of PP placements in ASC versus IH. Disclosure No
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».