Mp69-04 National Imaging and Antibiotic Practice Patterns in Children Presenting With Urinary Tract Infection: Little Impact of Aap Guidelines?

Abstract

independently reviewed and abstracted data from each study. Results were then merged and a third-party referee resolved any discrepancies. Analysis was done through RevMan 5.3.RESULTS: A total of 62 articles matched our inclusion criteria. Of these, 5 studies directly compared open (intra-vesical in 2 and extravesical in 3) with robotic surgery with a cumulative odds ratio of 1.06 favoring open reimplant (CI: 0.4-2.94). The intra-vesical open technique possessed an average OR time range of 147-166 min, LOS 1-2.9 d, and a complication rate of 25% (23/90); whereas the extra-vesical open technique possessed an avg. OR time range of 109-120 min, LOS 1.3-1.7 d, and complication rate of 19% (16/84). The avg. OR time for robotic reimplant in these studies was 165-233 min, LOS 1-1.7 d, and complication rate of 12% (14/118). When comparing data from the 1997 VUR guidelines to robotic reimplant data, we found a cumulative odds ratio of 2.01 favoring open reimplant (CI: 1.58-2.56). In addition, in our review of both techniques, the avg. range of OR time for open surgery was 56-176 min, avg. LOS 1-12 d, with a complication rate of 6.6% (173/2617); whereas the avg. OR time for robotic reimplant was 162-227 min, avg. LOS 1-7.4 d, with a complication rate of 10% (69/663).CONCLUSIONS: The overall weighted success rate was significantly higher for open surgery compared to robotic surgery, though more recent comparisons showed similar success rates. Open surgery had a longer LOS but shorter OR time compared to robotic reimplant.