A Comparison of Surgical Costs between Interval Laparoscopic Sterilization Techniques

Purpose: The significant improvements in flexible ureterorenoscopes have made flexible ureteroscopy the main treatment modality to target upper urinary pathologies. The purpose of this study was to critically evaluate all literature concerning the cost-effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy comparing single-use with reusable scopes. Methods: A systematic online literature review was performed in PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases. Two separate urologists (GSM and FCT) performed the online search and reviewed all papers considered suitable and relevant for this analysis. Because of the paucity of high quality publications, not only prospective assessments but also case control and case series studies were included in the final analysis. All factors potentially affecting surgical costs or clinical outcomes were considered in the analysis. Results: 741 studies with the previously elected terms were found. Of those, 18 were duplicated and 77 were not related to urology procedures and were excluded. Of the remaining 646 studies, 59 published between 2000 and 2018 were considered of relevance to the pre-defined queries and were selected for further analysis. Stone free and complication rates were similar between single-use and reusable scopes. In special, urinary tract infection rate following flexible ureteroscopy is not inferior if a single-use device is used instead of a reusable scope. Operative time was in average 20% shorter if a digital scope was used, single-use or not. There is a suggestion that the learning curve is shorter with single-use devices but this is not consistent in the literature. Surgeon expertise impacts the longevity of the flexible scope. Reusable digital scopes seem to last longer than optic ones, though scope longevity is very variable worldwide. New scopes usually last three to four times more than refurbished ones and single-use ureterorenoscopes have good resilience throughout long cases. Both sterilization method and cleaning process impact scope longevity, the best results being achieved with Cidex and a dedicated nurse to take care of the sterilization process. The main factors that negatively impact device longevity regarding patient and disease are lower pole pathologies, large stone burden and non-use of a ureteral access sheath. Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program is dependent of several aspects that must be considered when deciding whether to choose between a single-use and a reusable ureterorenoscope. Disposable devices are already a reality and will progressively become the standard as manufacturing price falls significantly.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Direct Surgical Costs for Proximal Row Carpectomy and Four-Corner Arthrodesis

Journal of Wrist Surgery ◽

10.1055/s-0038-1675791 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 08 (01) ◽

pp. 066-071 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Andrew Stephens ◽

Angela Presson ◽

Yizhe Xu ◽

Ross Feller ◽

Andrew Tyser ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Operative Time ◽

Tertiary Care ◽

Proximal Row Carpectomy ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Surgical Costs ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Simultaneous Procedures ◽

Supply Costs ◽

Staple Fixation

Background Proximal row carpectomy (PRC) and four-corner arthrodesis (FCA) are common treatments for stage II scapholunate advanced collapse (SLAC) and scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse (SNAC) wrists, with similar functional and patient-reported outcomes reported in the peer-reviewed literature. Questions Study questions included (1) whether surgical encounter total direct costs (SETDCs) differ between PRC and FCA, and (2) whether SETDC differs by method of fixation for FCA. Patients and Methods Consecutive adult patients (≥ 18 years) undergoing PRC and FCA between July 2011 and May 2017 at a single tertiary care academic institution were identified. Patients undergoing additional simultaneous procedures were excluded. Using our institution's information technology value tools, we extracted prospectively collected cost data for each surgical encounter. SETDCs were compared between PRC and FCA, and between FCA subgroups (screws, plating, or staples). Results Of 42 included patients, mean age was similar between the 23 PRC and 19 FCA patients (51.2 vs. 54.5 years, respectively). SETDCs were significantly greater for FCA than PRC by 425%. FCA involved significantly greater facility costs (2.3-fold), supply costs (10-fold), and operative time (121 vs. 57 minutes). Implant costs were absent for PRC, which were responsible for 55% of the SETDC for FCA. Compared with compression screws, plating and staple fixation were significantly more costly (70% and 240% greater, respectively). Conclusion SETDCs were 425% greater for FCA than PRC. Implant costs for FCA alone were 130% greater than the entire surgical encounter for PRC. For FCA, SETDC varied depending on the method of fixation. Level of Evidence This is a level III, cost analysis study.

Download Full-text