Chung S.-D.Kelle J.J.CHAO-YUAN HUANGChen Y.-H.Lin H.-C.2021-10-142021-10-1420121464-4096https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84873266825&doi=10.1111%2fj.1464-410X.2012.11183.x&partnerID=40&md5=52b7d24d71e037fc78997d7ddb36f03bhttps://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/584574OBJECTIVE ? To examine the risk of 90-day re-admission among patients undergoing retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in Taiwan. PATIENTS AND METHODS ? We identified 2741 hospitalised patients who underwent a RP. Of these 2741 cases, 1773 patients underwent RRP, 694 LRP, and 274 RALP. ? We performed a conditional (fixedeffect) logistic regression model to explore the odds of 90-day re-admission from RP among patients undergoing RRP, LRP, and RALP. RESULTS ? In all, 257 of the 2741 (9.4%) sampled subjects were re-admitted ? 90 days of the index RP. ? Patients undergoing a RALP had a significantly lower incidence rate of 90-day re-admission than patients undergoing a RRP or LRP (3.6% vs 10.7% vs 8.2%, P < 0.001). ? Compared with patients undergoing a RRP, the odds ratio (OR) of 90-day re-admission for patients undergoing a RALP was only 0.35 (95% confidence interval [ CI ] 0.19-0.68) after adjusting for patient age, geographic region, year of surgery, Charlson Co-morbidity Index score, and surgeon age and the number of RP cases/year. ? However, there was no significant difference in the odds of being re-admitted ? 90 days of RP between patients undergoing a LRP and RRP. ? The adjusted odds of 90-day re-admission for patients undergoing a RALP were 0.46 (95% CI 0.23-0.94) those of patients undergoing a LRP. CONCLUSIONS ? Our study shows that patients undergoing a RALP had a lower adjusted risk of 90-day re-admission than patients undergoing RRP. However, no significant differences were identified between LRP and RRP. ? 2012 THE AUTHORS.Epidemiology; Radical prostatectomy; Retropubic radical prostatectomy[SDGs]SDG3adult; age distribution; aged; article; controlled study; geographic distribution; hospital readmission; human; incidence; intermethod comparison; laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; length of stay; logistic regression analysis; major clinical study; male; medical history; open retropubic radical prostatectomy; population research; prevalence; priority journal; prostatectomy; risk assessment; risk factor; robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy; scoring system; surgeon; Taiwan; treatment outcome; comparative study; follow up; health survey; laparoscopy; methodology; middle aged; multicenter study; postoperative period; prostate tumor; retrospective study; robotics; statistics; time; Aged; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Readmission; Population Surveillance; Postoperative Period; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Robotics; Taiwan; Time Factorsjournal article10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11183.x225404252-s2.0-84873266825