Utilization fraction of rhinoplasty instrument sets: Model for efficient use of surgical instruments.

OBJECTIVES: Recognize the avoidable costs incurred due to overpacking of rhinoplasty instrument trays. Reduce rhinoplasty instrument trays by including only instruments used frequently. Establish methods to reduce trays prepared for other otolaryngologic procedures. METHODS: This is a prospective study. The study evaluates the specific use of instruments opened for rhinoplasty procedures at the New York Eye & Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai. Instruments were counted in 10 rhinoplasty cases. Usage rate was calculated for each instrument. Additionally, all instruments used in at least 20% of cases were noted. This "20%" threshold was used to create new rhinoplasty tray inventories more reflective of actual instrument usage. Some instruments above the 20% threshold were included in multiples (i.e. two Adson Brown forceps vs. one curved iris scissor). RESULTS: 189 instruments were opened, and 32 instruments were used on average in each rhinoplasty. 55 instruments were used in at least 20% of cases. The 55 "high usage" instruments were used to create new, reduced rhinoplasty tray inventory lists. Based on our analysis, a new rhinoplasty tray inventory was created comprised of 68 instruments, a 64% reduction from 189. CONCLUSION: Instruments are sterilized and packed in gross excess for rhinoplasty procedures. Previously published figures estimate re-sterilization costs of $0.51 to $0.77 per instrument. Reduction in instruments opened from 189 to 68 is expected to lead to cost savings ranging from $62 to $93 per case, yielding a savings between $6200 and $9300 per 100 cases performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-3.

Disparities in NOSE Scores and Surgical Approaches among Patients Undergoing Functional Rhinoplasty.

Social determinants of health have been widely studied throughout medicine; however, their role relating to functional rhinoplasty has not been previously evaluated. The records of 178 patients who underwent functional rhinoplasty in a single health network from 2013 to 2016 were reviewed. The Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) score was used to assess patient-reported symptoms, and patients with both preoperative and postoperative NOSE scores were included in this study. Basic demographics and surgical techniques were also collected. Differences between NOSE scores and surgical approaches to functional rhinoplasty on the basis of insurance type were measured. One hundred and sixteen patients were included for analysis, the mean age was 34.7 years (standard deviation [SD] = 16.2) and 57 (49.1%) were female. Twenty-one (18.1%) patients had public insurance and, of these, 18 patients had Medicaid. Patients (mean, SD) with Medicaid insurance (56.39, 15.6) had a slightly greater improvement in NOSE scores compared with patients with non-Medicaid insurance (47.90, 25.6) (p = 0.067). There was no statistically significant difference in preoperative NOSE scores or postoperative improvement in NOSE scores between patients with different health insurance. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference in surgical approaches. The majority of patients receiving functional rhinoplasty had private insurance. Medicaid patients trended toward a greater NOSE score improvement after functional rhinoplasty, but also had a closer association with a history of nasal trauma and prior surgery. Future study is needed to better understand the association between socioeconomic status and disparities in care. Understanding how social determinants of health affect patients may reveal potential inherent biases, improve delivery of care, and translate to better patient outcomes.