Single-Use Energy Sources and Operating Room Time for Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the intraoperative direct costs of a single-use energy device with reusable energy devices during laparoscopic hysterectomy. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial (Canadian Task Force Classification I). SETTING: An academic hospital. PATIENTS: Forty-six women who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy from March 2013 to September 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Each patient served as her own control. One side of the uterine attachments was desiccated and transected with the single-use device (Ligasure 5-mm Blunt Tip LF1537 with the Force Triad generator). The other side was desiccated and transected with reusable bipolar forceps (RoBi 5 mm), and transected with monopolar scissors using the same Covidien Force Triad generator. The instrument approach used was randomized to the attending physician who was always on the patient's left side. Resident physicians always operated on the patient's right side and used the converse instruments of the attending physician. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Start time was recorded at the utero-ovarian pedicle and end time was recorded after transection of the uterine artery on the same side. Costs included the single-use device; amortized costs of the generator, reusable instruments, and cords; cleaning and packaging of reusable instruments; and disposal of the single-use device. Operating room time was $94.14/min. We estimated that our single use-device cost $630.14 and had a total time savings of 6.7 min per case, or 3.35 min per side, which could justify the expense of the device. The single-use energy device had significant median time savings (-4.7 min per side, p < .001) and total intraoperative direct cost savings ($254.16 per case). CONCLUSIONS: A single-use energy device that both desiccates and cuts significantly reduced operating room time to justify its own cost, and it also reduced total intraoperative direct costs during laparoscopic hysterectomy in our institution. Operating room cost per minute varies between institutions and must be considered before generalizing our results.

Use of clomiphene citrate in the University of Utah Community Clinics.

OBJECTIVE: To determine patterns of usage of clomiphene citrate (CC) by primary care providers (obstetrician-gynecologists, family physicians, and other providers) within University of Utah Community Clinics. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective chart review (n = 79) and followup telephone survey of patients (n = 43) who were prescribed CC in the University of Utah Community Clinics in 2006. RESULTS: Most women who were prescribed CC had appropriate indications for therapy (65% with a diagnosis related to irregular menses and 33% with a diagnosis of female infertility), but there was variable and inconsistent monitoring of ovulation (much of which was apparently initiated by the patients). In the interview, 24 of the women (56%) said they would be fine having twins, and 14 (33%) said they would prefer to have twins if possible. CONCLUSION: In this primary care setting, clomiphene was prescribed for appropriate indications, but the monitoring of treatment could be improved. The preference of some patients for twin gestations represents a challenge for optimum clinical care and public health.