Adopting a portfolio of ultrasonic and advanced bipolar electrosurgery devices from a single manufacturer compared to currently used ultrasonic and advanced bipolar devices: a probabilistic budget impact analysis from a Spanish hospital perspective.

AIMS: Advanced energy devices are commonly used in electrosurgery, including ultrasonic and advanced bipolar (ABP) devices. Smoke evacuation and reusable dispersive electrodes are also utilized during electrosurgery to improve staff and patient safety. This study assessed the budget impact of adopting a portfolio of Ethicon energy devices compared to devices from other manufacturers from a Spanish hospital perspective. METHODS: The main analysis compared the Ethicon advanced energy device portfolio (ultrasonic and ABP devices) to Non-Ethicon advanced energy devices. It was assumed that 4,000 procedures using one advanced energy device each were performed annually, and the cost impact of operating room time, length of stay, and transfusions were considered. A probabilistic budget impact analysis with 10,000 iterations was conducted for generalizability to other hospitals in Spain and Europe. Secondary analysis assessed whether cost savings from the Ethicon advanced energy device portfolio could offset costs of adopting smoke evacuation and reusable dispersive electrodes (Full Ethicon energy portfolio). RESULTS: In the main analysis, the annual budget impact of introducing the Ethicon advanced energy device portfolio was cost saving in 79.8% of probabilistic iterations (mean: -€945,214; 95% credible interval [CrI]: -€3,242,710; €1,285,942) with a mean budget impact per procedure of -€236 (95% CrI: -€811; €321). In the secondary analysis, adding smoke evacuation and reusable dispersive electrodes was still cost saving in 75.3% of iterations compared to Non-Ethicon advanced energy devices (mean: -€778,208; 95% CrI: -€3,075,086; €1,464,728) with a mean budget impact per procedure of -€97 (95% CrI: -€384; €183). Savings resulted from differences in operating room time, length of hospital stay, and volume of disposable electrodes. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting Ethicon advanced energy devices demonstrated economic benefits compared to non-Ethicon devices. Introducing the advanced portfolio may improve surgical care quality and the full portfolio was cost saving while improving OR safety for staff and patients.

This study created an economic model to calculate whether using modern electrical surgical tools with features to make cutting tissue and stopping bleeding faster and easier could save Spanish hospitals money. The electrical surgery tools from one manufacturer were compared to those from various other companies. Differences in how long surgery took to perform, how long patients stayed in hospital after their surgery, and how many blood transfusions they needed were considered in the model. The model was tested 10,000 times with random changes in the costs and settings used to be surer about the range of possible results. The results showed the devices from one manufacturer could save a Spanish hospital money in almost 80% of model runs and that savings worked out to €236 per surgery. In another analysis, savings were enough to cover the cost of introducing safety devices to remove surgical smoke from the operating room and reusable patient grounding electrodes that prevent some injuries potentially caused by small sticky electrodes. In conclusion, the model showed that Spanish hospitals may be able to save money by switching to the modern electrical surgery tools from Ethicon.

A device category economic model of electrosurgery technologies across procedure types: a U.S. hospital budget impact analysis.

AIMS: The electrosurgical technology category is used widely, with a diverse spectrum of devices designed for different surgical needs. Historically, hospitals are supplied with electrosurgical devices from several manufacturers, and those devices are often evaluated separately; it may be more efficient to evaluate the category holistically. This study assessed the health economic impact of adopting an electrosurgical device-category from a single manufacturer. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed from a U.S. hospital perspective. The uptake of electrosurgical devices from EES (Ethicon Electrosurgery), including ultrasonic, advanced bipolar, smoke evacuators, and reusable dispersive electrodes were compared with similar MED (Medical Energy Devices) from multiple manufacturers. It was assumed that an average hospital performed 10,000 annual procedures 80% of which involved electrosurgery. Current utilization assumed 100% MED use, including advanced energy, conventional smoke mitigation options (e.g. ventilation, masks), and single-use disposable dispersive electrode devices. Future utilization assumed 100% EES use, including advanced energy devices, smoke evacuators (i.e. 80% uptake), and reusable dispersive electrodes. Surgical specialties included colorectal, bariatric, gynecology, thoracic and general surgery. Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses, and meta-regressions informed operating room (OR) time, hospital stay, and transfusion model inputs. Costs were assigned to model parameters, and price parity was assumed for advanced energy devices. The costs of disposables for dispersive electrodes and smoke-evacuators were included. RESULTS: The base-case analysis, which assessed the adoption of EES instead of MED for an average U.S. hospital predicted an annual savings of $824,760 ($101 per procedure). Savings were attributable to associated reductions with EES in OR time, days of hospital stay, and volume of disposable electrodes. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with these base-case findings. CONCLUSIONS: Category-wide adoption of electrosurgical devices from a single manufacturer demonstrated economic advantages compared with disaggregated product uptake. Future research should focus on informing comparisons of innovative electrosurgical devices.

Economic and clinical outcomes of spinal fusion surgeries with skin closure through skin staples plus waterproof wound dressings versus 2-octyl cyanoacrylate plus polymer mesh tape.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal fusion surgeries are one of the most common types of operations performed during inpatient stays in the United States. Successful wound closure, including watertight closure at the skin layer, plays in important role in patient outcomes. PURPOSE: To compare the economic and clinical outcomes of spinal fusion surgeries using one of two sutureless skin closure techniques: skin staples plus waterproof wound dressings (SSWWD) or 2-octyl cyanoacrylate plus polymer mesh tape (2OPMT). STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective study using a multi-hospital database. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing inpatient spinal fusion surgery for a spine disorder between October 1, 2015 and March 31, 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: Total costs from the hospital perspective, operating room time (ORT), hospital length of stay (LOS), non-home discharge, infection/wound complications during the 90-day global period (index surgery through 90 days post-discharge), and 30/60/90-day all-cause readmissions. METHODS: Outcomes were compared between study groups using nearest neighbor propensity score matching with exact matching on 45 primary procedure/diagnosis code groupings and generalized estimating equations to account for hospital-level clustering. This study was sponsored by Ethicon, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson company; the authors are employees or consultants of Johnson & Johnson. RESULTS: A total of 11,991 patients met the study criteria (2OPMT=5,961; SSWWD=6,030), of which 3,602 were included in each post-match study comparison group (total=7,204). As compared with the SSWWD group, the 2OPMT group had statistically significant lower median ORT (240 vs. 270 minutes; p=0.002), mean LOS (3.35 [SD=2.6] vs. 3.86 [SD=2.8] days, p=0.031), risks of non-home discharge status (17.63% vs. 23.10%, p=0.035), overall infections/wound complications (1.37% vs. 2.48%, p=0.015), and surgical site infection (1.11% vs. 2.07%, p=0.023). Differences between the study groups in total hospital costs, all-cause readmissions, and other sub-components of the infection/wound complication composite outcome were statistically insignificant (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective observational study of patients undergoing elective inpatient spinal fusion surgery, the use of 2OPMT for skin closure was associated with significantly lower ORT, LOS, non-home discharge, and 90-day rates of infections/wound complications as compared with SSWWD.

Clinical and economic outcomes of cesarean deliveries with skin closure through skin staples plus waterproof wound dressings versus 2-octyl cyanoacrylate plus polymer mesh tape.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical and economic outcomes of cesarean deliveries with skin closure through skin staples plus waterproof wound dressings (SSWWD) versus 2-octyl cyanoacrylate plus polymer mesh tape (2OPMT). We hypothesized that cesarean deliveries with skin closure through 2OPMT may be associated with a lower rate of wound complications and infections as compared with skin closure through SSWWD; we also hypothesized that, accordingly, 2OPMT may be associated with lower hospital length of stay (LOS), hospital costs, and all-cause readmissions as compared with SSWWD. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study using a research database derived from administrative records routinely contributed by hundreds of hospitals in the USA. We queried the database for patients aged 18-49 years who had an in-hospital low transverse cesarean delivery between 1 January, 2012 and 31 March, 2017. Using records of medical supplies used during deliveries, we identified deliveries for which skin closure was performed by either SSWWD (SSWWD group) or 2OPMT (2OPMT group). Our primary study outcome was a composite endpoint of infection/wound complication diagnosis during the hospital stays in which the deliveries were performed. Our secondary outcomes included: length of stay (LOS) and total hospital costs for the hospital stays in which the deliveries were performed, and all-cause readmissions (30/60/90 days post discharge) to the same hospital in which the delivery was performed. We compared outcomes between propensity-score matched groups using regressions accounting for hospital-level clustering and non-Gaussian empirical outcome distributions. RESULTS: Each group comprised 2133 patients (4266 total patients; mean age = 30.3 years [SD = 4.6]). Compared with the SSWWD group, the 2OPMT group had statistically significant lower rates of complications (infection, 0.7 versus 1.6%, p = .011; wound complication, 0.6 versus 1.3%, p = .036; composite, 0.9 versus 2.0%, p = .002), shorter LOS (mean = 3.5 days [SD = 1.6] versus 3.7 days [SD = 1.8], p = .007), and lower total hospital costs (mean = $8879 [SD = $3157] versus $9313 [SD = $3311], p = .025). Between-group differences for 30/60/90-day all-cause readmissions were statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: This large observational study is the first of its kind and provides evidence that cesarean delivery skin closure with 2OPMT is associated with lower rates of in-hospital infection and wound complications, lower LOS, lower total hospital costs as compared with SSWWD.

Barbed and conventional sutures in spinal surgery patients: an economic and clinical outcomes comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To compare economic and clinical outcomes of barbed sutures versus conventional sutures alone in wound closure for patients undergoing spinal surgery. METHOD: A retrospective study using the Premier Healthcare Database. The database was searched for patients who underwent elective inpatient spinal surgery (fusion or laminectomy) for a spinal disorder between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2018 (first=index admission). Using billing records for medical supplies used during the index admission, patients were classified into mutually-exclusive groups: patients with any use of STRATAFIX (Ethicon, US) knotless tissue control devices (barbed sutures group); or patients with use of conventional sutures alone (conventional sutures group). Outcomes included the index admission's length of stay, total and subcategories of hospital costs, non-home discharge, operating room time (ORT, minutes), wound complications and readmissions within ≤90 days. Propensity score matching and generalised estimating equations were used to compare outcomes between the study groups. RESULTS: After matching, 3705 patients were allocated to each group (mean age=61.5 years [standard deviation, SD±12.9]; 54% were females). Compared with the conventional suture group, the barbed suture group had significantly lower mean ORT (239±117 minutes, versus 263±79 minutes conventional sutures, p=0.015). Operating room costs were also siginificantly lower in the barbed suture group ($6673±$3976 versus $7100±$2700 conventional sutures, p=0.020). Differences were statistically insignificant for other outcomes (all p>0.05). Subanalysis of patients undergoing fusions of ≥2 vertebral joints yielded consistent results. CONCLUSION: In this study, wound closure incorporating barbed sutures was associated with lower ORT and operating room costs, with no significant difference in wound complications or readmissions, when compared with conventional sutures alone.