Purpose: Published single institutional case series are often performed by one or more surgeons with considerable expertise in specific procedures. The reported incidence of complications in these series may not accurately reflect community-based practice. We sought to compare complication and mortality rates following urologic procedures derived from population-based data to those of published single-institutional case series. Materials and Methods: In-hospital mortality and complications of common urologic procedures (percutaneous nephrostomy, ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair, ureteroneocystostomy, urethral repair, artificial urethral sphincter implantation, urethral suspension, transurethral resection of the prostate, and penile prosthesis implantation) reported in the U.S.'s National Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project were identified. Rates were then compared to those of published single-institution series using statistical analysis. Results: For 7 of the 8 procedures examined, there was no significant difference in rates of complication or mortality between published studies and our population-based data. However, for percutaneous nephrostomy, two published single-center series had significantly lower mortality rates (p < 0.001). The overall rate of complications in the population-based data was higher than published single or select multi-institutional data for percutaneous nephrostomy performed for urinary obstruction (p < 0.001). Conclusions: If one assumes that administrative data does not suffer from under reporting of complications then for some common urological procedures, complication rates between population-based data and published case series seem comparable. Endorsement of mandatory collection of clinical outcomes is likely the best way to appropriately counsel patients about the risks of these common urologic procedures.
- Informed consent
- Urologic procedures