Annales francaises d'anesthesie et de reanimation · 2006
[Disposable vs reusable laryngeal mask airway: a cost-minimization analysis].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Soulias M, Martin L, Garnier N, Juniot A, Aho L-S, Freysz M
Аннотация
JUSTIFICATION: According to French regulations concerning the risk of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease transmission, traceability procedures of all sterile medical devices which need to be reused are mandatory. Despite sterilization processes, the reusable laryngeal mask airway (LMA) prion disease transmission remains possible. As a result, the disposable LMA has been introduced.
OBJECTIVE: Assuming clinical equivalence was achieved, the cost of disposable vs reusable LMA was studied in a university hospital.
STUDY DESIGN: A Cost-minimization analysis of disposable vs reusable laryngeal mask airway was realised.
METHODS: Disposable LMA cost was calculated as the sum of product cost and elimination cost. Reusable LMA were autoclaved after hospital purchasing in two separate sterilizing processing units of the same hospital. Reusable LMA cost was determined combining materiel and labor costs.
RESULTS: The reusable LMA cost depended on the sterilizing processing unit concerned and varied between 9.59 Euros and 9.69 vs 8.38 Euros for the single-use LMA.
CONCLUSION: With the cost savings made possible by use of disposable LMA in both labor and consumables, this practice should be considered.
OBJECTIVE: Assuming clinical equivalence was achieved, the cost of disposable vs reusable LMA was studied in a university hospital.
STUDY DESIGN: A Cost-minimization analysis of disposable vs reusable laryngeal mask airway was realised.
METHODS: Disposable LMA cost was calculated as the sum of product cost and elimination cost. Reusable LMA were autoclaved after hospital purchasing in two separate sterilizing processing units of the same hospital. Reusable LMA cost was determined combining materiel and labor costs.
RESULTS: The reusable LMA cost depended on the sterilizing processing unit concerned and varied between 9.59 Euros and 9.69 vs 8.38 Euros for the single-use LMA.
CONCLUSION: With the cost savings made possible by use of disposable LMA in both labor and consumables, this practice should be considered.