Abstract:Introduction Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition among aging men, causing urinary symptoms and impacting quality of life. Understanding the trends in BPH treatment procedures is crucial for optimizing patient care. Evaluating the utilization of different treatments, the setting of procedures (inpatient vs. outpatient), and associated costs can provide valuable insights. Identifying patient- and hospital-level factors associated with inpatient treatments can help identify disparities in access to care. Assessing the financial implications of care settings can optimize resource allocation. This research aims to contribute to knowledge by providing comprehensive insights into BPH treatment patterns, patient demographics, and healthcare costs for informed decision-making and improved patient outcomes. Objective To evaluate contemporary national trends of BPH treatment procedures among men. Methods An analysis of BPH treatment procedures performed from 2016-2019 was conducted utilizing both the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample (NASS). BPH treatment procedures were identified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and International Classification of Diseases (10th Revision) Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-PCS) codes. Stratified cluster sampling was used to create weighted national estimates. The primary outcome was the rate of BPH treatments procedures performed in inpatient and outpatient encounters over time. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate patient- and hospital-level factors associated with inpatient BPH treatments. Results A total of 811,111 weighted BPH treatment procedures analyzed showed that 45% of procedures were performed inpatient, with the remaining 55% performed outpatient over the course of 2016-2019 (Figure 1). Regional analysis revealed a majority of procedures were performed in the South at 36% and about 40% inpatient and outpatient, respectively (Table 1). The proportion of BPH procedures performed outpatient remained stable at 55% from 2016-2019 (Figure 1). The average age of a treated patient was similar between 66 inpatient and 70 outpatient. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed an Elixhauser Comorbidity Index greater than 0 as a predictor of inpatient BPH treatment (Table 2). Medicare was the primary payer for both inpatient and outpatient settings at 51% and 60% respectively. Mean total charge for inpatient BPH encounters was 22,716 outpatient. Conclusions A sizable majority of BPH treatment procedures nationwide appear to be performed in an outpatient setting. Outpatient procedures have a lower total charge compared to inpatient care, which appears to be a contributing factor. Most inpatient procedures are more likely to be performed on patients. Further investigation is warranted to assess how these factors may affect surgical outcomes. Disclosure No.

PSU17 OUTPATIENT MIGRATION OF RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR PROSTATE CANCER IN THE UNITED STATES

Trends in Treatment for Prostate Cancer in China: Preliminary Patterns of Care Study in a Single Institution

Outpatient Vs Inpatient Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: an Evidence-Based Analysis of Comparative Outcomes

Outpatient versus inpatient robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis of comparative outcomes

(214) National Trends of Inpatient vs. Outpatient Male Benign Prostate Hyperplasia Procedures: 2016-2019

Robot-assisted and Laparoscopic Vs Open Radical Prostatectomy in Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Perioperative, Functional, and Oncological Outcomes

Comparative hospital cost-analysis of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

Disparities in Access to Outpatient Surgery Related to Removal of Procedures from Medicare’s Inpatient Only List

Robot-Assisted And Laparoscopic Vs Open Radical Prostatectomy In Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Perioperative, Functional, And Oncological Outcomes A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis

A Multidimensional Analysis of Prostate Surgery Costs in the United States: Robotic-Assisted versus Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy

Predictors for selection of outpatient single‐port robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Single-Port Extraperitoneal vs. Multiport Transperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Pathway Optimizes Outcomes and Costs for Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy

Same-Day Discharge vs Inpatient Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Complications, Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing, and Patient Satisfaction

A Retrospective Comparison of Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Versus Laparoscopic Prostatectomy for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer

The impact of surgical technique on very early functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Is More Beneficial for Prostate Cancer Patients: A System Review and Meta-Analysis.

Setting new standards: robot-assisted radical prostatectomy as a day case

Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in patients with high risk prostate cancer: experiences of 400 cases

COMPARISON OF ROBOTIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY VS LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY ON PROSTATE CANCER PATIENT: A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

A Comparison Of Perioperative Outcome Between Robot-Assisted And Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Experience Of A Single Institution