The Cost-Effectiveness of Vancomycin Powder in Lumbar Laminectomy.

STUDY DESIGN: Break-even cost analysis. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to examine the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin powder for preventing infection following lumbar laminectomy. METHODS: The product cost of vancomycin powder was obtained from our institution's purchasing records. Infection rates and revision costs for lumbar laminectomy and lumbar laminectomy with fusion were obtained from the literature. A break-even analysis was then performed to determine the absolute risk reduction (ARR) in infection rate to make prophylactic application of vancomycin powder cost-effective. Analysis of lumbar laminectomy with fusion was performed for comparison. RESULTS: Costing $3.06 per gram at our institution, vancomycin powder was determined to be cost-effective in lumbar laminectomy if the infection rate of 4.2% decreased by an ARR of 0.015%. Laminectomy with fusion was also determined to be cost-effective at the same cost of vancomycin powder if the infection rate of 8.5% decreased by an ARR of 0.0034%. The current highest cost reported in the literature, $44.00 per gram of vancomycin powder, remained cost-effective with ARRs of 0.21% and 0.048% for laminectomy and laminectomy with fusion, respectively. Varying the baseline infection rate did not influence the ARR for either procedure when the analysis was performed using the product cost of vancomycin at our institution. CONCLUSIONS: This break-even analysis demonstrates that prophylactic vancomycin powder can be highly cost-effective for lumbar laminectomy. At our institution, vancomycin powder is economically justified if it prevents at least one infection out of 6700 lumbar laminectomy surgeries.

Cost-effectiveness of Preoperative Staphylococcus aureus Screening and Decolonization in Cochlear Implantation.

OBJECTIVE: Infection following cochlear implantation is medically and economically devastating. The cost-effectiveness (CE) of colonization screening and decolonization for infection prophylaxis in cochlear implantation has not been examined. STUDY DESIGN: An analytic observational study of data collected from purchasing records and the literature. METHODS: Costs of Staphylococcus aureus colonization screening and decolonization were acquired from purchasing records and the literature. Infection rates after cochlear implantation and average total costs for evaluation and treatment were obtained from a review of the literature. A break-even analysis was performed to determine the required absolute risk reduction (ARR) in infection rate to make colonization screening or decolonization CE. RESULTS: Nasal screening ($144.07) is CE if the initial infection rate (1.7%) had an ARR of 0.60%. Decolonization with 2% intranasal mupirocin ointment ($5.09) was CE (ARR, 0.02%). A combined decolonization technique (2% intranasal mupirocin ointment, chlorhexidine wipes, chlorhexidine shower, and prophylactic vancomycin: $37.57) was CE (ARR, 0.16%). Varying infection rate as high as 15% demonstrated that CE did not change by maintaining an ARR of 0.16%. CE of the most expensive decolonization protocol was enhanced as the cost of infection treatment increased, with an ARR of 0.03% at $125,000. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic S aureus decolonization techniques can be CE for preventing infection following cochlear implantation. Decolonization with mupirocin is economically justified if it prevents at least 1 infection out of 5000 implants. S aureus colonization screening needed high reductions in infection rate to be CE.