Point-of-care ultrasound is an accurate, time-saving, and cost-effective modality for post-operative imaging after pyeloplasty. Issue 4 (August 2020)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Point-of-care ultrasound is an accurate, time-saving, and cost-effective modality for post-operative imaging after pyeloplasty. Issue 4 (August 2020)
- Main Title:
- Point-of-care ultrasound is an accurate, time-saving, and cost-effective modality for post-operative imaging after pyeloplasty
- Authors:
- Villanueva, Jeffrey
Pifer, Benjamin
Colaco, Marc
Fox, Janelle
Chaudhry, Rajeev
Schneck, Francis
Cannon, Glenn - Abstract:
- Summary: Background: Dismembered pyeloplasty is considered the gold standard treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Although the frequency and timing of follow up imaging after pyeloplasty is variable, renal ultrasound (RUS) is commonly utilized. With minimal training, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) can be easily performed by a urologist during a post-operative visit. Objective: Our hypothesis is that POCUS is an accurate, time-saving, and cost-effective alternative to a complete retroperitoneal ultrasound (CRUS) performed by the Radiology Department after pyeloplasty. Study design: The clinical records of all children who underwent pyeloplasty (by any method) over a 12 month period at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. The exact timing and method (POCUS vs. CRUS) of follow up imaging was surgeon-dependent. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the time and cost of POCUS vs. CRUS. The clinical course of each patient who had each type of imaging was assessed. Results: A total 45 patients were included in this analysis. Over a mean follow up period of 29 months, a total of 73 CRUS and 67 POCUS were performed. Each CRUS on average added 2 h to each patient's healthcare encounter. Had the 73 CRUS been performed as POCUS instead, this would have corresponded to $83, 751 less charges to payers. There was no difference in the rate of the detection of worsening, stable, or improved hydronephrosis (HN) between either modality ( p > 0.05). TheSummary: Background: Dismembered pyeloplasty is considered the gold standard treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Although the frequency and timing of follow up imaging after pyeloplasty is variable, renal ultrasound (RUS) is commonly utilized. With minimal training, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) can be easily performed by a urologist during a post-operative visit. Objective: Our hypothesis is that POCUS is an accurate, time-saving, and cost-effective alternative to a complete retroperitoneal ultrasound (CRUS) performed by the Radiology Department after pyeloplasty. Study design: The clinical records of all children who underwent pyeloplasty (by any method) over a 12 month period at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. The exact timing and method (POCUS vs. CRUS) of follow up imaging was surgeon-dependent. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the time and cost of POCUS vs. CRUS. The clinical course of each patient who had each type of imaging was assessed. Results: A total 45 patients were included in this analysis. Over a mean follow up period of 29 months, a total of 73 CRUS and 67 POCUS were performed. Each CRUS on average added 2 h to each patient's healthcare encounter. Had the 73 CRUS been performed as POCUS instead, this would have corresponded to $83, 751 less charges to payers. There was no difference in the rate of the detection of worsening, stable, or improved hydronephrosis (HN) between either modality ( p > 0.05). The recommended follow up time for observed HN was no different between CRUS and POCUS ( p > 0.05). Children with worsening HN on POCUS underwent functional studies without confirmatory CRUS. Interestingly, two patients had metachronous, contralateral UPJO discovered during post-operative imaging. These were both discovered by POCUS. Nineteen (42%) patients who had attended at least one post-operative visit were eventually loss to follow-up. This occurred exclusively in those who did not have worsening ultrasound ( p < 0.01). There was no difference in the loss to follow-up after POCUS (8) or CRUS (12) ( p > 0.05). Conclusions: POCUS performed by a urologist is an accurate assessment of HN after pyeloplasty with time and cost savings to compared to a CRUS performed by a radiologist. POCUS is not associated with any difference in rate of detection of worsening HN or rate of loss to follow up. Summary Table Clinical characteristics based on type of follow up renal ultrasound after pyeloplasty Point-of-care ultrasound Complete retroperitoneal ultrasound Cohort descriptive Statistics n (% or SD) n (% or SD) Total ultrasounds Performed 67 (48) 73 (52) Public insurance 25 (34) 22 (33) Age (mos) 72 (65)∗ 107 (76)∗ Mean time (min) attributable to the Radiology Department 0∗ 122 (101)∗ 2018 hospital charge ($) 273 1639 Interval result in hydronephrosis Worsened 5 (7.5) 6 (8.2) No change 11 (16.4) 11 (15.1) Improved 51 (76.1) 56 (76.7) Preceded an unplanned procedure 5 (10) 1 (1) Follow-up nuclear medicine study performed 6 (9) 5 (7) Legend ∗ p < 0.05. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Journal of pediatric urology. Volume 16:Issue 4(2020)
- Journal:
- Journal of pediatric urology
- Issue:
- Volume 16:Issue 4(2020)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 16, Issue 4 (2020)
- Year:
- 2020
- Volume:
- 16
- Issue:
- 4
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2020-0016-0004-0000
- Page Start:
- 472.e1
- Page End:
- 472.e6
- Publication Date:
- 2020-08
- Subjects:
- Pyeloplasty -- Point-of-care ultrasound -- Post-operative imaging -- Healthcare efficiency
Pediatric urology -- Periodicals
Urologic Diseases -- Periodicals
Urogenital Diseases -- Periodicals
Urologic Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals
Child
Infant
Urologie pédiatrique -- Périodiques
Appareil urinaire -- Maladies -- Périodiques
Pédiatrie
Urologie
Pediatric urology
Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme)
Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme)
Electronic journals
Periodicals
Electronic journals
618.926 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14775131 ↗
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14775131 ↗
http://www.elsevier.com/journals ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1016/j.jpurol.2020.05.156 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 1477-5131
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 5030.285000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 14361.xml