R A Chapman1, B K Somani2, A Robertson2, S Healy2, S G Kata3. 1. Department of Urology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, United Kingdom. Electronic address: alexchapman@nhs.net. 2. Department of Urology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Urology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Stracathro Hospital, Stracathro, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a cost benefit while using disposable laser fibers as compared with reusable laser fibers. Flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) is a central component of endourology. It is vital that for service provision and training purposes, costs are kept down while delivering this service. Laser fibers are known to damage scopes causing high repair and/or replacement costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for consecutive FURS procedures during 2 periods in a single center were compared. First, with the use of reusable fibers and second, with single-use fibers. Cost of laser fibers and repairs was recorded. The study excludes the cost of the initial purchase of the ureterorenoscopes or the holmium laser equipment and costs associated with staffing and hospital stay. RESULTS: The total number of FURS carried out in period 1 and period 2 was 260 and 265, respectively. A total of 13 reusable (185 procedures) and 168 disposable laser fibers were used in these 2 periods, respectively. There was a reduction in laser damaged ureteroscopes from 9 to 3 in the second period. This resulted in a £ 16,800 reduction in repair cost. This more than offsets the increased costs of single-use fibers. CONCLUSION: On the basis of our data, it is more cost-effective to use a disposable laser fiber, as it prevents scope damage, which can happen because of microfractures with repeated laser use. Moreover, this will also save time and/or resource required with sterilization.
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a cost benefit while using disposable laser fibers as compared with reusable laser fibers. Flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) is a central component of endourology. It is vital that for service provision and training purposes, costs are kept down while delivering this service. Laser fibers are known to damage scopes causing high repair and/or replacement costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for consecutive FURS procedures during 2 periods in a single center were compared. First, with the use of reusable fibers and second, with single-use fibers. Cost of laser fibers and repairs was recorded. The study excludes the cost of the initial purchase of the ureterorenoscopes or the holmium laser equipment and costs associated with staffing and hospital stay. RESULTS: The total number of FURS carried out in period 1 and period 2 was 260 and 265, respectively. A total of 13 reusable (185 procedures) and 168 disposable laser fibers were used in these 2 periods, respectively. There was a reduction in laser damaged ureteroscopes from 9 to 3 in the second period. This resulted in a £ 16,800 reduction in repair cost. This more than offsets the increased costs of single-use fibers. CONCLUSION: On the basis of our data, it is more cost-effective to use a disposable laser fiber, as it prevents scope damage, which can happen because of microfractures with repeated laser use. Moreover, this will also save time and/or resource required with sterilization.