European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2019
Single-use versus reusable medical devices in spinal fusion surgery: a hospital micro-costing analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Bouthors C, Nguyen J, Durand L, Dubory A, Raspaud S, Court Ch
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Healthcare facilities could minimize the cost of surgical instrument and implant processing by using single-use devices. The main objective was to prospectively compare the total cost of a single-use and reusable device used in short lumbar spine fusion.
METHODS: A 1-year, single-centre, prospective study was performed on patients requiring a one- or two-level lumbar arthrodesis. Patients were randomized in two groups treated with either reusable or single-use device. A cost minimization analysis was performed using a micro-costing approach from a hospital perspective. Every step of the preparation process was timed and costed based on hourly wages of hospital employees, cleaning supplies and hospital waste costs.
RESULTS: Forty cases were evaluated. No significant difference in operation time was noted (reusable 176.1 ± 68.4 min; single use 190.4 ± 71.7 min; p = 0.569). Mean processing time for single-use devices was lower than for reusable devices (33 min vs. 176 min) representing a cost of 14€ versus 58€ (p < 0.05). Pre-/post-sterilization and spinal set recomposing steps were the most time-consuming in reusable device group. A total cost saving of 181€ per intervention resulted from the use and processing of the single-use device considering an additional sterilization cost of 137€ with the reusable device. The weight of the reusable device was 42 kg for three containers and 1.2 kg for the single-use device.
CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the absence of re-sterilization, single-use devices in one- and two-level lumbar fusion allow significant money and time savings. They may also avoid delaying surgery in case of reusable device unavailability.
METHODS: A 1-year, single-centre, prospective study was performed on patients requiring a one- or two-level lumbar arthrodesis. Patients were randomized in two groups treated with either reusable or single-use device. A cost minimization analysis was performed using a micro-costing approach from a hospital perspective. Every step of the preparation process was timed and costed based on hourly wages of hospital employees, cleaning supplies and hospital waste costs.
RESULTS: Forty cases were evaluated. No significant difference in operation time was noted (reusable 176.1 ± 68.4 min; single use 190.4 ± 71.7 min; p = 0.569). Mean processing time for single-use devices was lower than for reusable devices (33 min vs. 176 min) representing a cost of 14€ versus 58€ (p < 0.05). Pre-/post-sterilization and spinal set recomposing steps were the most time-consuming in reusable device group. A total cost saving of 181€ per intervention resulted from the use and processing of the single-use device considering an additional sterilization cost of 137€ with the reusable device. The weight of the reusable device was 42 kg for three containers and 1.2 kg for the single-use device.
CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the absence of re-sterilization, single-use devices in one- and two-level lumbar fusion allow significant money and time savings. They may also avoid delaying surgery in case of reusable device unavailability.