National nephrectomy registries: reviewing the need for population-based data

John Pearson, Timothy Williamson, Joseph Ischia, Damien Michael Bolton, Mark Frydenberg, Nathan Lawrentschuk

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Nephrectomy is the cornerstone therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and continued refinement of the procedure through research may enhance patient outcomes. A national nephrectomy registry may provide the key information needed to assess the procedure at a national level. The aim of this study was to review nephrectomy data available at a population-based level in Australia and to benchmark these data against data from the rest of the world as an examination of the national nephrectomy registry model. A PubMed search identified records pertaining to RCC nephrectomy in Australia. A similar search identified records relating to established nephrectomy registries internationally and other surgical registries of clinical importance. These records were reviewed to address the stated aims of this article. Population-based data within Australia for nephrectomy were lacking. Key issues identified were the difficulty in benchmarking outcomes and no ongoing monitoring of trends. The care centralization debate, which questions whether small-volume centers provide comparable outcomes to high-volume centers, is ongoing. Patterns of adherence and the effectiveness of existing protocols are uncertain. A review of established international registries demonstrated that the registry model can effectively address issues comparable to those identified in the Australian literature. A national nephrectomy registry could address deficiencies identified in a given nation?s nephrectomy field. The model is supported by evidence from international examples and will provide the population-based data needed for studies. Scope exists for possible integration with other registries to develop a more encompassing urological or surgical registry. Need remains for further exploration of the feasibility and practicalities of initiating such a registry including a minimum data set, outcome indicators, and auditing of data. ? The Korean Urological Association, 2015.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)607 - 613
Number of pages7
JournalKorean Journal of Urology
Volume56
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Cite this