RESUMO
Purpose: When traditional therapies fail to provide relief from debilitating lower back pain, surgeries such as transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) may be required. This budget impact analysis (BIA) compared minimally-invasive (MI)-TLIF versus open (O)-TLIF for single-level fusion from an Italian hospital perspective. Methods: The BIA compared costs of 100 MI-TLIF and 100 O-TLIF procedures from an Italian hospital perspective over a one-year time horizon. The base case included costs for length of hospital stay (LOS), blood loss, and sterilizing surgical trays. The scenario analysis also included operating room (OR) time and complication costs. Base case inputs were from the Miller et al meta-analysis; scenario analysis inputs were from the Hammad et al meta-analysis. The device costs for MI-TLIF and O-TLIF procedures were from Italian tender prices for Viper Prime™ System and Expedium™ Spine System, respectively. Results: Base case deterministic analysis results showed cost savings of 207,370 for MI-TLIF compared with O-TLIF. MI-TLIF costs were lower for LOS (215,277), transfusion for blood loss (16,881), and surgical tray sterilization (28,232), whereas device costs were lower for O-TLIF (53,020). The probabilistic result was similar, with MI-TLIF resulting in savings of 211,026 (95% credible interval [CR]: 208,725 - 213,327). All 1000 base case probabilistic sensitivity analysis runs were cost saving. Deterministic scenario analysis results showed cost savings of 166,719 for MI-TLIF. MI-TLIF costs were lower for LOS (190,813), transfusion for blood loss (16,881), surgical tray sterilization (28,232), and complications (2076), whereas O-TLIF costs were lower for OR time (18,263) and devices used (53,020). Conclusion: Despite the increase incremental cost for medical device innovation and OR time, this study demonstrates the economic savings of MI-TLIF compared to O-TLIF from a European hospital perspective. The findings will be useful to policy and hospital decision makers in assessing purchasing, funding and reimbursement decisions.
RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Eletrocirurgia , Ultrassom , Humanos , Orçamentos , Hospitais , Salas CirúrgicasRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, both with axillary lymph node dissection, are common treatments for early-stage breast cancer. Monopolar electrocautery is typically used for both procedures, despite evidence of improved clinical outcomes with HARMONIC FOCUS™+. This analysis evaluated the budget impact of adopting HARMONIC FOCUS™+ versus monopolar electrocautery for patients undergoing these procedures from an Italian hospital perspective. METHODS: Total costs for an annual caseload of 100 patients undergoing mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, with axillary lymph node dissection, with either the intervention or comparator were calculated. Italian clinical and cost input data were utilised. The analysis included costs for the device, operating room time, postoperative length of stay, treating seroma and managing postoperative chest wall drainage. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty of model input values. Two scenario analyses investigated the impact of conservative estimates of postoperative length of stay reduction and daily hospital cost on the simulated cost difference. RESULTS: HARMONIC FOCUS™+ achieves annual savings of EUR 100,043 compared with monopolar electrocautery, derived from lower costs for operating room time, postoperative length of stay and seroma and postoperative chest wall drainage management, offsetting the incremental device cost increase (EUR 43,268). Cost savings are maintained in scenario analyses and across all variations in parameters in deterministic sensitivity analysis, with postoperative hospital stay costs being key drivers of budget impact. The mean (interquartile range) cost savings with HARMONIC FOCUS™+ versus monopolar electrocautery in probabilistic sensitivity analysis are EUR 101,637 (EUR 64,390-137,093) with a 98% probability of being cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention demonstrates robust cost savings compared with monopolar electrocautery for mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, with axillary lymph node dissection, in an Italian hospital setting, and improved clinical and resource outcomes. These findings, with other clinical and cost analyses, support HARMONIC FOCUS™+ use in this setting.
