C Bouthors1, J Nguyen2, L Durand2, A Dubory3, S Raspaud2, Ch Court3. 1. Orthopedic and Traumatology Surgery Department (Pr Ch Court), Bicetre University Hospital, AP-HP Paris, Paris-Sud University ORSAY, 78 Rue du Général Leclerc, 94275, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. charlie.bouthors@hotmail.fr. 2. Pharmacy and Sterilization Department, Bicetre University Hospital, AP-HP Paris, Paris-Sud University ORSAY, 78 Rue du Général Leclerc, 94275, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. 3. Orthopedic and Traumatology Surgery Department (Pr Ch Court), Bicetre University Hospital, AP-HP Paris, Paris-Sud University ORSAY, 78 Rue du Général Leclerc, 94275, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Abstract
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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Arup K Bhadra; Grzegorz J Kwiecien; Steven F Harwin; Aaron J Johnson; Michael A Mont; Arthur L Malkani Journal: Surg Technol Int Date: 2012-12