Cargando…

Versorgungswirklichkeit der urologischen Endoprothetik in Deutschland von 2006 bis 2016

BACKGROUND: Treating urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction improves quality of life for many patients. In particular, sphincter and penile prostheses achieve very good results when conservative therapy options are exhausted. The aim of this study is to present the development and current sta...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baunacke, Martin, Groeben, Christer, Borkowetz, Angelika, Uhlig, Annemarie, Leitsmann, Marianne, Volkmer, Björn, Thomas, Christian, Huber, Johannes
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Medizin 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7979589/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33481064
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00120-021-01444-5
_version_ 1783667292556492800
author Baunacke, Martin
Groeben, Christer
Borkowetz, Angelika
Uhlig, Annemarie
Leitsmann, Marianne
Volkmer, Björn
Thomas, Christian
Huber, Johannes
author_facet Baunacke, Martin
Groeben, Christer
Borkowetz, Angelika
Uhlig, Annemarie
Leitsmann, Marianne
Volkmer, Björn
Thomas, Christian
Huber, Johannes
author_sort Baunacke, Martin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Treating urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction improves quality of life for many patients. In particular, sphincter and penile prostheses achieve very good results when conservative therapy options are exhausted. The aim of this study is to present the development and current state of sphincter and penile prosthesis implantation in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out an analysis of the Diagnosis Related Groups billing data in Germany from 2006–2016. We described the state of care in 2016 based on the German hospitals’ quality reports. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2012 implantations of sphincter prostheses in Germany increased from 739 to 1112 (p < 0.001), the amount of implanting hospitals also increased from 129 to 206 (p < 0.001). From 2012–2016, the number of cases decreased to 980 and the number of hospitals to 198. In 2016, 168 (88%) urological hospitals implanted 1–9 sphincter prostheses and 23 (12%) hospitals implanted ≥ 10 sphincter prostheses. The top 10 hospitals (≥20 sphincters) implanted 34% (283/839) of all sphincters. Between 2006 and 2013 the number of implanted penile prostheses continuously increased from 263 to 503 (p < 0.001), the number of implanting hospitals from 71 to 107 (p < 0.001). From 2013–2016, the number of cases (p = 0.9) and the number of implanting hospitals (p = 0.5) stagnated. The proportion of penile prostheses implanted as part of gender reassignment surgery increased from 17% in 2006 to 25% in 2016 (p = 0.03). In 2016, 83 (85%) urological hospitals implanted 1–6 penile prostheses and 14 (15%) hospitals implanted ≥ 7 prostheses. The 7 top hospitals (≥20 prostheses/year) implanted 232/448 (52%) of the prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: The current state of urological endoprosthetics in Germany shows a small number of high-volume centers, but also a large number of hospitals with a small number of cases. Since 2012/2013, there has been a stagnation in the number of cases of penile and sphincter prosthesis implantations. In view of the number of radical prostatectomy cases, this development suggests an undersupply.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7979589
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Medizin
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79795892021-04-05 Versorgungswirklichkeit der urologischen Endoprothetik in Deutschland von 2006 bis 2016 Baunacke, Martin Groeben, Christer Borkowetz, Angelika Uhlig, Annemarie Leitsmann, Marianne Volkmer, Björn Thomas, Christian Huber, Johannes Urologe A Originalien BACKGROUND: Treating urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction improves quality of life for many patients. In particular, sphincter and penile prostheses achieve very good results when conservative therapy options are exhausted. The aim of this study is to present the development and current state of sphincter and penile prosthesis implantation in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out an analysis of the Diagnosis Related Groups billing data in Germany from 2006–2016. We described the state of care in 2016 based on the German hospitals’ quality reports. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2012 implantations of sphincter prostheses in Germany increased from 739 to 1112 (p < 0.001), the amount of implanting hospitals also increased from 129 to 206 (p < 0.001). From 2012–2016, the number of cases decreased to 980 and the number of hospitals to 198. In 2016, 168 (88%) urological hospitals implanted 1–9 sphincter prostheses and 23 (12%) hospitals implanted ≥ 10 sphincter prostheses. The top 10 hospitals (≥20 sphincters) implanted 34% (283/839) of all sphincters. Between 2006 and 2013 the number of implanted penile prostheses continuously increased from 263 to 503 (p < 0.001), the number of implanting hospitals from 71 to 107 (p < 0.001). From 2013–2016, the number of cases (p = 0.9) and the number of implanting hospitals (p = 0.5) stagnated. The proportion of penile prostheses implanted as part of gender reassignment surgery increased from 17% in 2006 to 25% in 2016 (p = 0.03). In 2016, 83 (85%) urological hospitals implanted 1–6 penile prostheses and 14 (15%) hospitals implanted ≥ 7 prostheses. The 7 top hospitals (≥20 prostheses/year) implanted 232/448 (52%) of the prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: The current state of urological endoprosthetics in Germany shows a small number of high-volume centers, but also a large number of hospitals with a small number of cases. Since 2012/2013, there has been a stagnation in the number of cases of penile and sphincter prosthesis implantations. In view of the number of radical prostatectomy cases, this development suggests an undersupply. Springer Medizin 2021-01-22 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7979589/ /pubmed/33481064 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00120-021-01444-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open Access Dieser Artikel wird unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz veröffentlicht, welche die Nutzung, Vervielfältigung, Bearbeitung, Verbreitung und Wiedergabe in jeglichem Medium und Format erlaubt, sofern Sie den/die ursprünglichen Autor(en) und die Quelle ordnungsgemäß nennen, einen Link zur Creative Commons Lizenz beifügen und angeben, ob Änderungen vorgenommen wurden. Die in diesem Artikel enthaltenen Bilder und sonstiges Drittmaterial unterliegen ebenfalls der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz, sofern sich aus der Abbildungslegende nichts anderes ergibt. Sofern das betreffende Material nicht unter der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz steht und die betreffende Handlung nicht nach gesetzlichen Vorschriften erlaubt ist, ist für die oben aufgeführten Weiterverwendungen des Materials die Einwilligung des jeweiligen Rechteinhabers einzuholen. Weitere Details zur Lizenz entnehmen Sie bitte der Lizenzinformation auf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de.
spellingShingle Originalien
Baunacke, Martin
Groeben, Christer
Borkowetz, Angelika
Uhlig, Annemarie
Leitsmann, Marianne
Volkmer, Björn
Thomas, Christian
Huber, Johannes
Versorgungswirklichkeit der urologischen Endoprothetik in Deutschland von 2006 bis 2016
title Versorgungswirklichkeit der urologischen Endoprothetik in Deutschland von 2006 bis 2016
title_full Versorgungswirklichkeit der urologischen Endoprothetik in Deutschland von 2006 bis 2016
title_fullStr Versorgungswirklichkeit der urologischen Endoprothetik in Deutschland von 2006 bis 2016
title_full_unstemmed Versorgungswirklichkeit der urologischen Endoprothetik in Deutschland von 2006 bis 2016
title_short Versorgungswirklichkeit der urologischen Endoprothetik in Deutschland von 2006 bis 2016
title_sort versorgungswirklichkeit der urologischen endoprothetik in deutschland von 2006 bis 2016
topic Originalien
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7979589/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33481064
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00120-021-01444-5
work_keys_str_mv AT baunackemartin versorgungswirklichkeitderurologischenendoprothetikindeutschlandvon2006bis2016
AT groebenchrister versorgungswirklichkeitderurologischenendoprothetikindeutschlandvon2006bis2016
AT borkowetzangelika versorgungswirklichkeitderurologischenendoprothetikindeutschlandvon2006bis2016
AT uhligannemarie versorgungswirklichkeitderurologischenendoprothetikindeutschlandvon2006bis2016
AT leitsmannmarianne versorgungswirklichkeitderurologischenendoprothetikindeutschlandvon2006bis2016
AT volkmerbjorn versorgungswirklichkeitderurologischenendoprothetikindeutschlandvon2006bis2016
AT thomaschristian versorgungswirklichkeitderurologischenendoprothetikindeutschlandvon2006bis2016
AT huberjohannes versorgungswirklichkeitderurologischenendoprothetikindeutschlandvon2006bis2016