Institutional Micro-Cost Comparative Analysis of Reusable vs Single-use Cystoscopes With Assessment of Environmental Footprint.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comparative cost analysis between single-use and reusable cystoscopes from a national healthcare system perspective and assess the environmental footprint. METHODS: Single-center micro-cost analysis of reusable vs single-use cystoscopes used institutional data. The cost breakdown included capital, reprocessing, repair, procedure, and environmental impact expenses. Data collection occurred in 2022, utilizing registered data, observations, and expert opinions. Depreciation was applied over 5 years for reusable cystoscopes and 8 years for the automated endoscope reprocessor. Deterministic sensitivity analyses gauged result robustness to input variations. Lastly, an assessment of the environmental footprint, focusing on water consumption and waste generation, was conducted. RESULTS: Per-procedure cost associated with reusable cystoscopes was €332.46 vs €220.19 associated with single-use, resulting in savings of €112.27. When projecting these costs per procedure with the number of procedures performed in 2022 (1186), comparing the costs of procedures performed in 1 year with reusable endoscopes (€394,295.86) to the costs of the exact number of procedures performed with disposable endoscopes (€261,149.37), a saving of €133,146.49 could be achieved. Additionally, after continuous use of single-use endoscopes, procedures were scheduled every 20 minutes instead of every 30 minutes. This adjustment allowed for 15 daily procedures instead of 10 while maintaining the same shift. This suggests potential advantages in terms of improved organizational impact and reduced waiting lists. Ultimately, the decreased environmental impact favored the adoption of single-use cystoscopes. CONCLUSION: Our study presents an opportunity for organizational development in response to the evolving external environment, considering user needs, market dynamics, and competition with other facilities.

The Economics of Cystoscopy: A Microcost Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the per-procedure cost of flexible cystoscopy in relation to reimbursement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Capital, maintenance, reprocessing, labor, and disposable costs were calculated at a high-volume academic institution over the fiscal year 2019. Five-year amortized values were used to calculate reusable cystoscope and automated endoscopic reprocessor (AER) per-procedure cost. Twenty flexible cystoscope procedure cycles were timed and multiplied by prevailing medical office assistant wages to determine labor costs. Medicare and commercially insured reimbursements were queried to evaluate the cost and profitability of cystoscopy. RESULTS: In total, 3739 flexible cystoscopies were performed with 415 procedures per cystoscope. Total annual costs for capital and maintenance, reprocessing, labor, and disposable supplies was $202,494, $147,969, $128,117, and $121,904, respectively. The per-procedure cost for reusable cystoscopy with AER reprocessing, reusable cystoscopy with a high-level disinfectant (HLD), and theoretical costs of disposable cystoscopy were calculated to be $161, $133, and $222, respectively. The volume of procedures per scope had a significant impact on cost and profitability. The number of procedures per cystoscope performed to have equivalent cost as a disposable scope was, 196 and 145 cystoscopies per cystoscope per year, for AER and HLD-reprocessed cystoscopes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a considerable contribution of capital equipment, maintenance, labor, and supplies to the cost of cystoscopy with profitability highly depend on the volume of cystoscopies performed for each cystoscope. The use of AER results in higher cost than HLD. Cost-effectiveness of disposable scopes needs to be determined but will vary by clinic volume and site of practice.

A micro-costing analysis of outpatient flexible cystoscopy: implications for adoption of single-use flexible cystoscopes.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the total cost of outpatient flexible cystoscopy associated with reusable device purchase, maintenance, and reprocessing, and to assess potential cost benefits of single-use flexible cystoscopes. METHODS: Cost data regarding the purchasing, maintaining, and reprocessing of reusable flexible cystoscopes were collected using a micro-costing approach at a high-volume outpatient urology clinic. We estimated the costs to facilities with a range of annual procedure volumes (1000-3000) performed with a fleet of cystoscopes ranging from 10 to 25. We also compared the total cost per double-J ureteral stent removal procedure performed using single-use flexible cystoscopes versus reusable devices. RESULTS: The cost associated with reusable flexible cystoscopes ranged from $105 to $224 per procedure depending on the annual procedure volume and cystoscopes available. As a practice became more efficient by increasing the ratio of procedures performed to cystoscopes in the fleet, the proportion of the total cost due to cystoscope reprocessing increased from 22 to 46%. For ureteral stent removal procedures, the total cost per procedure using reusable cystoscopes (range $165-$1469) was higher than that using single-use devices ($244-$420), unless the annual procedure volume was sufficiently high relative to the number of reusable cystoscopes in the fleet (≥ 350 for a practice with ten reusable cystoscopes, ≥ 700 for one with 20 devices). CONCLUSION: The cost of reprocessing reusable cystoscopes represents a large fraction of the total cost per procedure, especially for high-volume facilities. It may be economical to adopt single-use cystoscopes specifically for stent removal procedures, especially for lower-volume facilities.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a single-use digital flexible cystoscope for double J removal.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The novel single-use digital flexible cystoscope Isiris™ has been developed to perform in-office JJ stent removal, without the need of special equipment nor limitations linked to the disinfection of a reusable device. The aim of our study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of Isiris™ in our institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 127 consecutive patients undergoing in-office stent removal with Isiris™ were prospectively included in study. After each procedure, the urologist filled a questionnaire specifically developed to evaluate the efficiency of the device and the invasiveness of the procedure. We performed a cost analysis of the main variables involved in JJ removal using Isiris™ versus the traditional Storz™ reusable flexible cystoscope used for all our previous patients. RESULTS: The procedure was successful in all cases except for one, where the device did not work due to the failure of the grasper and had to be replaced. Overall, the performance of Isiris™ was judged by the physician "very good" and "good" in 90.6% of the cases. Both median pain and invasiveness felt by the patient were 0 (range = 0-8). The mean cost of procedure was estimated at €361 for in-office stent removal with Isiris™, and €1.126.8 for stent removal in operatory room with a reusable flexible cystoscope. Considering the 127 procedures performed in office, 64 h of operatory room time was saved. CONCLUSION: In institutions where JJ removal is performed in the operatory room, Isiris™ leads to a significant advantage in terms of money saved per procedure, operatory room time gained and patient satisfaction.

[Economic and organizational impact of the use of a disposable sheath with a flexible cystoscope]. / Cystoscope flexible à gaine stérile à usage unique: impact organisationnel et économique et sécurité bactériologique.

PURPOSE: To assess both economical and organizational impact as well as bacteriologic safety of a flexible cystoscope with sterile disposable sheath (FCSDS) compared to standard flexible cystoscopy (SFC) in two French urologic academic units. PATIENTS: Two-center prospective study, comparing the use of the FCSDS to the SFC on two consecutive periods of time. Two hundred and five patients were included and divided into each group. Duration procedures and costs were analysed in the two techniques. The urinary tract infection rate was also described. A dedicated sheaths leaks test after use was performed systematically. RESULTS: The preparation time of the fibroscope was longer for the sheathed cystoscopy group: 16.2 minutes versus 10.9 minutes for the standard group. The mean duration of disinfection was significantly shorter for the sheathed cystoscopy group: 53.8 minutes saved compared to the standard group; 99.01% of the tested sheaths, after their use, had no breaches. Urinary tract infections rate were similar in the two groups. The average cost of a sheathed cystoscopy compared to the standard was significantly cheaper in Lyon and almost equivalent in Marseille. CONCLUSION: The FCSDS allows significant saving over the disinfection duration, consumable costs and staff costs, while ensuring patient bacteriologic safety similar to SFC.

A randomized, single-blinded pilot study evaluating use of a laparoscope or a cystoscope for cystoscopy during gynecologic surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate time required to perform cystoscopy with a laparoscope or a cystoscope after laparoscopic hysterectomy. Urinary tract symptoms, infection, adverse events, and expense were also evaluated. DESIGN: Randomized, single-blind pilot study (Canadian Task Force classification I). SETTING: Suburban private gynecology group practice and local community hospital. SUBJECTS: Sixty-six subjects scheduled to undergo laparoscopic hysterectomy between January and July 2009. INTERVENTION: Either cystoscopy with a laparoscope or a cystoscope. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Subjects were randomized to undergo either form of cystoscopy, and events were reported. Each subject completed self-reported urinary tract symptom questionnaires before surgery and at 2 weeks after surgery. Clean-catch urine samples were obtained before surgery and postoperatively at day 1 and 2 weeks. In the group who underwent laparoscope cystoscopy, a suction-irrigator device, a 5-mm needle-nose suction irrigator tip, and a 5-mm 0-degree video laparoscope were required. In the group who underwent traditional cystoscopy, a 70-degree video telescope with a 17F sleeve, irrigation fluid, and a light source were required. Subjects were followed up for 6 weeks postoperatively. Adverse events were minimal, with 1 in the laparoscope group and 6 in the traditional cystoscope group. Two postoperative urinary tract infections occurred in the traditional cystoscopy group. The mean total procedural time for laparoscope cystoscopy of 137 seconds was statistically less (p < .001) compared with the 296 seconds in the traditional cystoscopy group. Improvements in urinary tract symptom scores improved from baseline, but were not statistically significantly different between the groups. Traditional cystoscopy equipment cost approximately $60 more per subject. CONCLUSION: The study results suggest that laparoscope cystoscopy is more time-efficient and cost-effective than traditional cystoscopy and that the incidence of urinary tract symptoms, infection, and injury did not increase.

An independent analysis of flexible cystoscope repairs and cost.

PURPOSE: To establish the repair patterns of flexible cystoscopes we performed a systematic review of repairs performed at an independent endoscope repair company. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Repair and cost data for 2000 to 2004 were obtained from an independent endoscope repair company. All cystoscopes underwent a detailed inspection using a preset protocol and the frequency of individual repair descriptions was extracted from a computer database. RESULTS: A total of 1,150 repairs were performed on the Olympus CYF (3%), CYF-2 (21%), CYF-3 (56%) and CYF-4 (20%) flexible cystoscopes. Repairs to the distal tip (28% of all repairs) most commonly involved the bending rubber or outer polymer sheath. Repairs to the hand control segment (14% of all repairs) most commonly involved the ocular. Repairs for image (14% of all repairs) and deflection (9%) were most commonly performed on the fiberoptic bundle and wires, respectively. Repairs to the deflection apparatus comprised a significantly greater proportion of total repairs in the early CYF models than in the CYF-4 model (10% to 12% vs 3%, p <0.01, chi-square 10.73). Less than 1% of all cystoscopes needed more than 2 repairs. CONCLUSIONS: Olympus cystoscopes require repair every 2 to 3 years and they appear to be durable. The distal deflection tip, specifically the outer bending rubber, is the most common site of flexible cystoscope damage. Although it appears that significant improvements have been made to the deflection apparatus, the number of repairs to other areas has not changed significantly with time. Improvements in form and function of the distal tip, the hand control segment and the fiberoptic bundles may enhance the durability of flexible cystoscopes.

Bacteriological safety and cost-effectiveness of a nonrefluxing valve in the irrigation system during outpatient flexible cystoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate the infection rate associated with the use of a nonrefluxing irrigation system for outpatient flexible cystoscopy, by comparing it with conventional irrigation systems, and to determine the costs and benefits of this system of irrigation delivery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients undergoing flexible cystoscopy on scheduled outpatient lists were considered for inclusion in the study; 143 patients of 220 undergoing cystoscopy fulfilled the study criteria. The study group of patients underwent cystoscopy with a new single-use nonrefluxing valve inserted into the same irrigation delivery system that was used for the whole endoscopy session, and the control group had the complete irrigation system changed after each endoscopic examination. Midstream urine samples were taken for analysis before cystoscopy and again 3-4 days later. Infection was defined as a pure growth of >/= 105 organisms/mL, with associated pyuria defined as >/= 10 pus cells per high power microscopic field. RESULTS: Complete data were available on 133 patients, with a further nine being excluded from the statistical analysis because they had a pre-existing urinary tract infection, leaving 64 patients in the study and 69 in the control groups. The overall infection rate for flexible cystoscopy was 3.2%, with no significant difference between the study and control groups. Cost savings of > 35% can be expected using the nonrefluxing valve method of irrigation delivery. CONCLUSION: The nonrefluxing valve caused no detectable increase in patient morbidity from bacterial infection when compared with conventional irrigation systems for flexible cystoscopy, and can save considerable costs.