BACKGROUND: Use of ultrasonic shears is currently the standard for advanced laparoscopic digestive surgery. The costs of medical care continue to increase, yet the amount of evidence-based information on cost differences in reusable and single-use equipment is scarce. METHODS: All bariatric laparoscopic cases in our division that required the use of ultrasonic shears were observed during a 7-month period. The reusable and single-use scalpels were alternated weekly. Associated expenses (replacements, cleaning, sterilization), blood loss, complications, and ease-of-use were assessed. The total cost and cost per case for the two types of scalpels were calculated and compared. RESULTS: Eighty-five cases with both the single-use and reusable scalpels were evaluated. Both groups of cases were comparable in type of surgeries and patient demographics. No significant difference in operation time (reusable, 156 +/- 15 min; single-use, 174 +/- 15 min; p = 0.34) or ease-of-use was noted. The equipment failure rate (one replacement each), complications, and estimated blood loss (reusable, 63 +/- 11 mL; single-use, 83 +/- 12 mL; p = 0.06) were similar. A total cost saving of $15,163 resulted from the use and processing of the reusable equipment. Using the reusable shears for 85 cases, the cost-per-case saving was $196.40. CONCLUSIONS: The reusable scalpel had a cost saving over single-use scalpel that increased with the number of cases. The reusable scalpel resulted in significant cost savings without impact on complication rate and ease-of-use.
BACKGROUND: Use of ultrasonic shears is currently the standard for advanced laparoscopic digestive surgery. The costs of medical care continue to increase, yet the amount of evidence-based information on cost differences in reusable and single-use equipment is scarce. METHODS: All bariatric laparoscopic cases in our division that required the use of ultrasonic shears were observed during a 7-month period. The reusable and single-use scalpels were alternated weekly. Associated expenses (replacements, cleaning, sterilization), blood loss, complications, and ease-of-use were assessed. The total cost and cost per case for the two types of scalpels were calculated and compared. RESULTS: Eighty-five cases with both the single-use and reusable scalpels were evaluated. Both groups of cases were comparable in type of surgeries and patient demographics. No significant difference in operation time (reusable, 156 +/- 15 min; single-use, 174 +/- 15 min; p = 0.34) or ease-of-use was noted. The equipment failure rate (one replacement each), complications, and estimated blood loss (reusable, 63 +/- 11 mL; single-use, 83 +/- 12 mL; p = 0.06) were similar. A total cost saving of $15,163 resulted from the use and processing of the reusable equipment. Using the reusable shears for 85 cases, the cost-per-case saving was $196.40. CONCLUSIONS: The reusable scalpel had a cost saving over single-use scalpel that increased with the number of cases. The reusable scalpel resulted in significant cost savings without impact on complication rate and ease-of-use.