Literature DB >> 8153862

Reusable instruments are more cost-effective than disposable instruments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

K N Apelgren1, M L Blank, C A Slomski, N S Hadjis.   

Abstract

Health care costs are rising rapidly, and surgeons can play a role in limiting costs of operations. Of the 600,000 cholecystectomies performed each year in the United States, approximately 80% are performed with laparoscopic technique. The purpose of this study was to compare the costs of reusable vs disposable instruments used during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The costs to the hospital of reusable and disposable instruments were obtained. Instruments studied were the Veress needle, trocars and sleeves (two 10 mm and two 5 mm), reducers, clip appliers, and clips. In addition, the costs of sterilization and sharpening for reusable instruments were calculated. The cost of reusable instruments was based on an assumed instrument life of 100 cases. Data from three private hospitals and a Canadian university hospital were collected and examined. Data from the four hospitals revealed that the costs of reusable instruments per case were $46.92-$50.67. The comparable costs for disposable instruments were $330.00-$460.00 per case. Theoretical advantages of disposable instruments such as safety, sterility, and better efficiency are not borne out in literature review. In addition, the environmental impact of increased refuse from disposable instruments could not be exactly defined. With the consideration of significant cost savings and the absence of data demonstrating disadvantages of their use, reusable instruments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, are strongly recommended.

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8153862     DOI: 10.1007/bf02909490

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  10 in total

1.  Environment, cost concerns spur new interest in reusables.

Authors:  M Wagner
Journal:  Mod Healthc       Date:  1990-05-14

2.  A quantitative, qualitative, and critical assessment of surgical waste. Surgeons venture through the trash can.

Authors:  M E Tieszen; J C Gruenberg
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-05-27       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Comparison of direct insertion of disposable and standard reusable laparoscopic trocars and previous pneumoperitoneum with Veress needle.

Authors:  F R Nezhat; S L Silfen; D Evans; C Nezhat
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Pneumoperitoneum needle and trocar injuries in laparoscopy. A survey on possible contributing factors and prevention.

Authors:  A A Yuzpe
Journal:  J Reprod Med       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 0.142

Review 5.  NIH Consensus conference. Gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-02-24       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Guidelines for preparation of laparoscopic instrumentation.

Authors: 
Journal:  AORN J       Date:  1980-07       Impact factor: 0.676

7.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a community hospital setting.

Authors:  R R Sim; D J Nowicky; J C McAlhany; G S Blouin; D W Blackhurst
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1992-08

8.  Aortic injury. A catastrophic complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  K N Apelgren; D E Scheeres
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  A practical approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  C R Voyles; A B Petro; A L Meena; A J Haick; A M Koury
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 2.565

10.  Measurement of the force necessary for laparoscopic trocar entry.

Authors:  S L Corson; F R Batzer; B Gocial; G Maislin
Journal:  J Reprod Med       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 0.142

  10 in total
  18 in total

Review 1.  Are radially dilating trocars better than the alternatives?

Authors:  K N Apelgren
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Evaluation of the cost for laparoscopic-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy.

Authors:  Y Adachi; N Shiraishi; K Ikebe; M Aramaki; T Bandoh; S Kitano
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-06-12       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  S Adler; M Scherrer; K D Rückauer; F D Daschner
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-12-09       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  [Ultrasonic scissors. New vs resterilized instruments].

Authors:  D Gärtner; K Münz; E Hückelheim; U Hesse
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 0.955

5.  A contemporaneous comparison of hospital charges for laparoscopic aand open Nissen fundoplication.

Authors:  K N Apelgren
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  A contemporaneous comparison of hospital charges for laparoscopic and open Nissen fundoplication.

Authors:  R Incarbone; J H Peters; J Heimbucher; D Dvorak; C G Bremner; T R DeMeester
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  A cost comparison of disposable vs reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  L Demoulin; K Kesteloot; F Penninckx
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Ultrasound scissors: new single-use instruments vs. resterilised single-use instruments - a prospective randomised study.

Authors:  D Gärtner; K Münz; E Hückelheim; U Hesse
Journal:  GMS Krankenhhyg Interdiszip       Date:  2008-09-03

9.  Laparoscopic versus conventional surgery for suspected appendicitis in women.

Authors:  G Zaninotto; M Rossi; M Anselmino; M Costantini; S Pianalto; N Baldan; D Pizzato; E Ancona
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Cost-effective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  M Slater; M I Booth; T C B Dehn
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2009-09-25       Impact factor: 1.891

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.