Reducing the Cost of Laparoscopy: Reusable versus Disposable Laparoscopic Instruments

Dimitrios K Manatakis, Nikolaos Georgopoulos, Dimitrios K Manatakis, Nikolaos Georgopoulos

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness in health care management is critical. The situation in debt-stricken Greece is further aggravated by the financial crisis and constant National Health System expense cut-downs. In an effort to minimize the cost of laparoscopy, our department introduced reusable laparoscopic instruments in December 2011. The aim of this study was to assess potential cost reduction of laparoscopic operations in the field of general surgery. Hospital records, invoice lists, and operative notes between January 2012 and December 2013, were retrospectively reviewed and data were collected on laparoscopic procedures, instrument failures, and replacement needs. Initial acquisition cost of 5 basic instrument sets was €21,422. Over the following 24 months, they were used in 623 operations, with a total maintenance cost of €11,487. Based on an average retail price of €490 per set, projected cost with disposable instruments would amount to €305,270, creating savings of €272,361 over the two-year period under study. Despite the seemingly high purchase price, each set amortized its acquisition cost after only 9 procedures and instrument cost depreciated to less than €55 per case. Disposable instruments cost 9 times more than reusable ones, and their high price would almost equal the total hospital reimbursement by social security funds for many common laparoscopic procedures.

References

    1. Winter DC. The cost of laparoscopic surgery is the price of progress. British Journal of Surgery. 2009;96(4):327–328.
    1. Moore DE, Speroff T, Grogan E, Poulose B, Holzman MD. Cost perspectives of laparoscopic and open appendectomy. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2005;19(3):374–378.
    1. Ljem MSL, Halsema JAM, van der Graaf YD, Schrijvers AJP, Van Vroonhoven TJMV. Cost-effectiveness of extraperitoneal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized comparison with conventional herniorrhaphy. Annals of Surgery. 1997;226(6):668–676.
    1. Keus F, de Jonge T, Gooszen HG, Buskens E, van Laarhoven CJHM. Cost-minimization analysis in a blind randomized trial on small-incision versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a societal perspective: sick leave outweighs efforts in hospital savings. Trials. 2009;10:p. 80.
    1. Heikkinen T, Haukipuro K, Koivukangas P, et al. Comparison of costs between laparoscopic and open nissen fundoplication: a prospective randomized study with a 3-month followup. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 1999;188(4):368–376.
    1. Yung E, Gagner M, Pomp A, Dakin G, Milone L, Strain G. Cost comparison of reusable and single-use ultrasonic shears for laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Obesity Surgery. 2010;20(4):512–518.
    1. Apelgren KN, Blank ML, Slomski CA, Hadjis NS. Reusable instruments are more cost-effective than disposable instruments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy. 1994;8(1):32–34.
    1. Schaer GN, Koechli OR, Haller U. Single-use versus reusable laparoscopic surgical instruments: a comparative cost analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1995;173(6):1812–1815.
    1. Demoulin L, Kesteloot K, Penninckx F. A cost comparison of disposable vs reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy. 1996;10(5):520–525.
    1. Eddie G, White S. A comparison of reusable versus disposable laparoscopic instrument costs. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery. 1996;66(10):671–675.
    1. Fengler TW, Pahlke H, Kraas E. Sterile and economic instrumentation in laparoscopic surgery: Experiences with 6,000 surgical laparoscopies, 1990–1996. Surgical Endoscopy. 1998;12(10):1275–1279.
    1. Lau H, Lee F, Patil NG, Yuen WK. Two hundred endoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasties: cost containment by reusable instruments. Chinese Medical Journal. 2002;115(6):888–891.
    1. Adler S, Scherrer M, Rückauer KD, Daschner FD. Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2005;19(2):268–272.
    1. Slater M, Booth MI, Dehn TCB. Cost-effective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2009;91(8):670–672.
    1. Vasios N, Verroiotou M, Komninos G, Arapoglou S, Fragandreas G. Study of the cost of mainly reusable equipment for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hellenic Journal of Surgery. 2013;85(2):101–104.
    1. Chu T, Chandhoke RA, Smith PC, Schwaitzberg SD. The impact of surgeon choice on the cost of performing laparoscopic appendectomy. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2011;25(4):1187–1191.
    1. Traverso LW, Hargrave K. A prospective cost analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The American Journal of Surgery. 1995;169(5):503–506.
    1. MacFadyen BV, Lenz S. The economic considerations in laparoscopic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy. 1994;8(7):748–752.
    1. Reichert M. Laparoscopic instruments. Patient care, cost issues. AORN Journal. 1993;57(3):637–655.
    1. Targarona EM, Balagué C, Knook MM, Trías M. Laparoscopic surgery and surgical infection. British Journal of Surgery. 2000;87(5):536–544.
    1. Alfa MJ, Nemes R. Manual versus automated methods for cleaning reusable accessory devices used for minimally invasive surgical procedures. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2004;58(1):50–58.
    1. Dunn D. Reprocessing single-use devices—the ethical dilemma. AORN Journal. 2002;7(5):988–999.
    1. Botero Couto Lopes CDL, Graziano KU, Andreoli Pinto TDJ. Evaluation of single-use reprocessed laparoscopic instrument sterilization. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem. 2011;19(2):370–377.
    1. DesCôteaux J, Poulin EC, Julien M, Guidoin R. Residual Organic Debris on Processed Surgical Instruments. AORN Journal. 1995;62(1):23–30.
    1. Roth K, Heeg P, Reichl R. Specific hygiene issues relating to reprocessing and reuse of single-use devices for laparoscopic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2002;16(7):1091–1097.
    1. Kelty CJ, Super PA, Stoddard CJ. The driving force in trocar insertion: a comparison between disposable and reusable trocars. Surgical Endoscopy. 2000;14(11):1045–1046.
    1. Montero PN, Robinson TN, Weaver JS, Stiegmann GV. Insulation failure in laparoscopic instruments. Surgical Endoscopy and other Interventional Techniques. 2010;24(2):462–465.
    1. Alkatout I, Schollmeyer T, Hawaldar NA, Sharma N, Mettler L. Principles and safety measures of electrosurgery in laparoscopy. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 2012;16(1):130–139.
    1. Liu Q, Sun X. Indirect electrical injuries from capacitive coupling: a rarely mentioned electrosurgical complication in monopolar laparoscopy. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2013;92(2):238–241.
    1. Ibbotson S, Dettmer T, Kara S, Herrmann C. Eco-efficiency of disposable and reusable surgical instruments—a scissors case. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2013;18(5):1137–1148.
    1. Traverso LW. The laparoscopic surgical value package and how surgeons can influence costs. Surgical Clinics of North America. 1996;76(3):631–639.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться