Disposable Ureteroscopes in Urology: Current State and Future Prospects.

Ureteroscopy is the most common surgical modality for stone treatment. Reusable flexible ureteroscopes are delicate instruments that require expensive maintenance and repairs. Multiple single use ureteroscopes have been developed recently to combat the expensive and time-intensive sterilization and repair of ureteroscopes. Although multiple studies have looked at different aspects of reusable and single use ureteroscopes, there is significant heterogeneity in performance measures and cost between the 2 categories, and neither has a clear advantage. Both can be used successfully, and individual and institution level factors should be considered when deciding which ureteroscope to use.

The Cost of Guideline Adherence: A Multicenter Analysis of the Financial Implications of Adopting the US Multi-Society Task Force Polypectomy Guidelines.

GOAL: The goal of this study was to determine the financial impact of adopting the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) polypectomy guidelines on physician reimbursement and disposable equipment costs for gastroenterologists in the academic medical center and community practice settings. BACKGROUND: In 2020, USMSTF guidelines on polypectomy were introduced with a strong recommendation for cold snare rather than cold forceps technique for removing diminutive and small polyps. Polypectomy with snare technique reimburses physicians at a higher rate compared with cold forceps and also requires different disposable equipment. The financial implications of adopting these guidelines is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients that underwent screening colonoscopy where polypectomy was performed at an academic medical center (Loma Linda University Medical Center) and community practice medical center (Ascension Providence Hospital) between July 2018 and July 2019 were identified. The polypectomy technique performed during each procedure was determined (forceps alone, snare alone, forceps plus snare) along with the number and size of polyps as well as disposable equipment. Actual and projected provider reimbursement and disposable equipment costs were determined based on applying the new polypectomy guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 1167 patients underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy. Adhering to new guidelines would increase estimated physician reimbursement by 5.6% and 12.5% at academic and community practice sites, respectively. The mean increase in physician reimbursement per procedure was significantly higher at community practice compared with the academic setting ($29.50 vs. $14.13, P <0.00001). The mean increase in disposable equipment cost per procedure was significantly higher at the community practice setting ($6.11 vs. $1.97, P <0.00001). CONCLUSION: Adopting new polypectomy guidelines will increase physician reimbursement and equipment costs when colonoscopy with polypectomy is performed.

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.

The Role of Physician-Driven Device Preference in the Cost Variation of Common Interventional Radiology Procedures.

PURPOSE: To analyze the impact of physician-specific equipment preference on cost variation for procedures typically performed by interventional radiologists at a tertiary care academic hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October 2017 to October 2019, data on all expendable items used by 9 interventional radiologists for 11 common interventional radiology procedure categories were compiled from the hospital analytics system. This search yielded a final dataset of 44,654 items used in 2,121 procedures of 11 different categories. The mean cost per case for each physician as well as the mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation (CV) of the mean cost per case across physicians were calculated. The proportion of spending by item type was compared across physicians for 2 high-variation, high-volume procedures. The relationship between the mean cost per case and case volume was examined using linear regression. RESULTS: There was a high variability within each procedure, with the highest and the lowest CV for radioembolization administration (56.6%) and transjugular liver biopsy (4.9%), respectively. Variation in transarterial chemoembolization cost was mainly driven by microcatheters/microwires, while for nephrostomy, the main drivers were catheters/wires and access sets. Mean spending by physician was not significantly correlated with case volume (P =.584). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians vary in their item selection even for standard procedures. While the financial impact of these differences vary across procedures, these findings suggest that standardization may offer an opportunity for cost savings.

Advantages of patient-specific cutting guides with disposable instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a case control study.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is most frequently planned using conventional two-dimensional weight-bearing lower limb radiographs and is performed with conventional femoral and tibial cutting guides. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of conventional TKA instrumentation and planning for an anatomically standard or complex joint. Use of computed tomography (CT)-based three-dimensional (3D) templating and patient-specific cutting guides printed in 3D has shown improved postoperative lower limb alignment parameters. This case-control study compared costs and operative times of using CT-based, patient-specific, single-use instruments versus conventional metal instruments for TKA. METHODS: In this case-control, retrospective chart review, all TKAs were performed by one senior surgeon, using the F.I.R.S.T. posterior-stabilised knee prosthesis (Symbios, CH), with a similar protocol and identical operating room setup. Group A included 51 TKAs performed with patient-specific cutting guides and conventional metal instruments. Group B included 49 TKAs performed with patient-specific cutting guides and patient-specific, single-use instrumentation. Operation duration, number of instrumentation trays and sterilisation costs were evaluated. RESULTS: The groups were similar for age, body mass index, hip-knee-ankle angle and operation duration. The mean number of instrumentation trays was 8.0 ± 0.8 for group A (controls) and 5.1 ± 0.9 for group B (p<0.001). The mean sterilisation costs were 380 ± 47 Swiss Francs (CHF) for group A and 243 ± 55 CHF for group B (p<0.001), for a mean cost reduction of 130.50 CHF per intervention in group B. The time interval between two consecutive surgeries was 24 min for group A and 18 min for group B. There were no adverse events or complications, instrument-related or otherwise. CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional instrumentation, use of patient-specific, single-use instruments for TKA reduced the number of instrumentation trays by more than one-third and saved 36% in sterilisation costs. If fabrication costs of single-use instruments are included by the company, the total cost is significantly diminished. There was no operative time advantage for single-use instrumentation.

Cold Technique in Adult Tonsillectomy Reduces Waste and Cost.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify differences in waste and cost of disposable equipment between different tonsillectomy techniques. METHODS: Prospective study of waste attributable to disposable waste produced by tonsillectomy surgery. Disposable equipment required for tonsillectomy using cold, monopolar electrocautery (ME), and coblation techniques was measured; and differences in mass, volume, and cost of equipment between the 3 techniques were quantified. RESULTS: Cold technique was found to produce the least waste and have the lowest cost attributable to disposable surgical equipment. Projected single-case savings in mass and volume of waste resulting from using cold technique compared to ME were 1.272 kg and 1.013 L, respectively, and 1.043 kg and 1.723 L compared to coblation. Projected single-case savings in cost of disposable equipment for cold technique compared to ME were US$9.35 and US$185.05 compared to coblation. DISCUSSION: Using cold technique for adult tonsillectomy reduces waste and cost of disposable equipment compared to ME and coblation. Implications for Practice: Surgeons desiring to reduce cost and waste associated with tonsillectomy surgery may consider transitioning to cold technique.

COVID-19 Solutions Are Climate Solutions: Lessons From Reusable Gowns.

The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the inadequacy of the U.S. healthcare system to deliver timely and resilient care. According to the American Hospital Association, the pandemic has created a $202 billion loss across the healthcare industry, forcing health care systems to lay off workers and making hospitals scramble to minimize supply chain costs. However, as the demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) grows, hospitals have sacrificed sustainable solutions for disposable options that, although convenient, will exacerbate supply strains, financial burden, and waste. We advocate for reusable gowns as a means to lower health care costs, address climate change, and improve resilience while preserving the safety of health care workers. Reusable gowns' polyester material provides comparable capacity to reduce microbial cross-transmission and liquid penetration. In addition, previous hospitals have reported a 50% cost reduction in gown expenditures after adopting reusable gowns; given the current 2000% price increase in isolation gowns during COVID-19, reusable gown use will build both healthcare resilience and security from price fluctuations. Finally, with the United States' medical waste stream worsening, reusable isolation gowns show promising reductions in energy and water use, solid waste, and carbon footprint. The gowns are shown to withstand laundering 75-100 times in contrast to the single-use disposable gown. The circumstances of the pandemic forewarn the need to shift our single-use PPE practices to standardized reusable applications. Ultimately, sustainable forms of protective equipment can help us prepare for future crises that challenge the resilience of the healthcare system.

Economic and Environmental Impact of Single-use Plastics at a Large Ophthalmology Outpatient Service.

PRéCIS:: The use of disposable tonometer prisms and gonioscopy lenses at a large ophthalmology outpatient service incurs significant financial and environmental waste that may not be justified given the limited data surrounding arguments for their use. PURPOSE: To quantify the economic and environmental burden of single-use plastics from an ophthalmology outpatient service at a large tertiary hospital and describe the relative value and evidence for the safety of disposable versus nondisposable tonometer prisms and gonioscopy lenses. METHODS: The total number of single-use applanation tonometer prisms and gonioscopy lenses used per year at Boston Medical Center (BMC) was estimated, and the average dollars spent and plastic waste generated in kilograms per year were then determined. These values were compared with the total spending and waste that would be produced if the clinic were to use nondisposable tonometer prisms and gonioscopy lenses exclusively. RESULTS: Single-use tonometer prisms cost an average of $70,282 per year and produce ~100.8 kg of plastic waste per year at BMC. Single-use gonioscopy lenses cost ~$9,040 per year and produce 8.8 kg of plastic waste per year at BMC. An excess of $65,185 and 109.6 kg of plastic waste could be avoided each year by only using nondisposable tonometer prisms and gonioscopy lenses at the BMC ophthalmology outpatient service. CONCLUSIONS: Single-use plastics in ophthalmology outpatient services generate significant environmental waste and financial cost compared with nondisposable instruments. This cost may outweigh the benefits of these instruments given the limited data surrounding arguments for their use.

Cost-Effective Approach to the Laparoscopic Appendectomy : Balancing Disposable Instrument Cost With Operative Time.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons can help reduce health care spending by selecting affordable and efficient instruments. The laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is commonly performed and can serve as a model for improving health care cost. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all adult patients who underwent LA for non-perforated appendicitis from March 2015 to November 2017. Our objective was to determine which combination of disposable instruments afforded the lowest total operative cost without compromising postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 1857 consecutive patients were reviewed from 2 hospitals. After determining the 8 most commonly utilized combinations of disposable instruments, 846 patients were ultimately analyzed. The combination of a LigaSure, Endoloop, and an EndoBag (LEB) had the shortest median operative time (25 minutes, P < .001) and lowest median total operative cost ($1893, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The LEB instrument combination rendered the shortest operative time, lowest total operative cost, and can be used to maximize surgical value during LA.

Switching to Single-use Flexible Ureteroscopes for Stones Management: Financial Impact and Solutions to Reduce the Cost Over a 5-Year Period.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the financial impact of switching to single-use ureteroscopes (sURS) in urolithiasis management for a hospital, over a 5-year period, and to identify possible solutions to contain or reduce it. METHODS: A Budget Impact (BI) model was designed for a public hospital performing around 200 ureteroscopies or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsies per year. The BI was estimated as the difference between financial balances (between costs and revenues) of 2 environments (with and without sURS). The population was defined as adults treated for urolithiasis. The BI model was based on assumptions about the expected progression in the incidence of urolithiasis, and the expected change in clinical practices due to the availability of sURS. We considered the costs and revenues of hospital stays, the purchase price of sURS and the costs of digital or fiberoptic reusable ureteroscopes (rURS). Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The cumulative 5-year financial impact of switching completely to sURS was €807,824 and €649,677 in comparison with fiberoptic and digital rURS respectively. This impact could be reduced by half or more if the health-care facility were to adopt different solutions, including negotiating the purchase price of sURS, developing outpatient activity and reducing production costs for ureteroscopy procedures. CONCLUSION: The BI model gives decision-makers a more accurate picture of the financial impact of switching to sURS and highlights ways to reduce the expected additional cost.

A Positive-Pressure Environment Disposable Shield (PEDS) for COVID-19 Health Care Worker Protection.

The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health care system resources and reduced the availability of life-sustaining and medical-grade personal protective equipment (PPE) though the combination of increased demand and disrupted manufacturing supply chains. As a result of these shortages, many health care providers have temporarily used largely untested, improvised PPE (iPPE). Lack of quality control for makeshift PPE and frequent repurposing of used items to conserve supplies increase both the risk of provider infection and nosocomial spread to uninfected patients. One strategy to reduce risk of infection and preserve existing equipment is the implementation of secondary barrier devices placed directly over patients or providers. The authors describe an inexpensive, disposable, positive-pressure head isolation unit that can be rapidly constructed from materials readily available in nearly all health care settings for under five US dollars. The unit was successfully deployed in Taiwan during the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak, and again during the COVID-19 pandemic. The iPPE worn directly by the health care workers (HCWs) can be donned prior to patient contact in the presence of an air source. This strategy may be more protective than a covering placed over the patient in an aerosol-generating environment, which requires the HCW to be in close contact with the patient prior to securing the protective device.

Time-driven activity-based costing of a novel form of CT-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy intraoperative radiation therapy compared with conventional breast intraoperative radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative radiation therapy is an emerging option for adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer, although it is not currently considered standard of care in the United States. We applied time-driven activity-based costing to compare two alternative methods of breast intraoperative radiation therapy, including treatment similar to the techniques employed in the TARGIT-A clinical trial and a novel version with CT-guidance and high-dose-rate (HRD) brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Process maps were created to describe the steps required to deliver intraoperative radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer at each institution. The components of intraoperative radiation therapy included personnel, equipment, and consumable supplies. The capacity cost rate was determined for each resource. Based on this, the delivery costs were calculated for each regimen. For comparison across centers, we did not account for indirect facilities costs and interinstitutional differences in personnel salaries. RESULTS: The CT-guided, HRD form of intraoperative radiation therapy costs more to deliver ($4,126.21) than the conventional method studied in the TARGIT-A trial ($1,070.45). The cost of the brachytherapy balloon applicator ($2,750) was the primary driver of the estimated differences in costs. Consumable supplies were the largest contributor to the brachytherapy-based approach, whereas personnel costs were the largest contributor to costs of the standard form of intraoperative radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with the more established method of intraoperative radiation therapy using a portable superficial photon unit, the delivery of treatment with CT guidance and HDR brachytherapy is associated with substantially higher costs. The excess costs are driven primarily by the cost of the disposable brachytherapy balloon applicator and, to a lesser extent, additional personnel costs. Future work should include evaluation of a less expensive brachytherapy applicator to increase the anticipated value of brachytherapy-based intraoperative radiation therapy.

Analysing actual prices of medical products: a cross-sectional survey of Dutch hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether there is a difference between the net prices of medical products used by Dutch hospitals and, if there is, how this difference can be explained. DESIGN: Cross-sectional self-administered electronic survey. SETTING: We surveyed the prices paid for 17 commonly used medical products, such as pacemakers, gloves and stents in 38 Dutch hospitals (including general, specialised and academic hospitals) in 2017. Hospitals voluntarily and anonymously provided these data and received a personalised free benchmark tool in return. This tool provides information about the variance in prices of the medical products they buy. PARTICIPANTS: 38 out of 79 hospitals entered and completed the study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Actual price paid excluding Value Added Tax (VAT) per item, the order size per year, total spending for an assortment group and total spending for all products purchased from a specific supplier were measured. RESULTS: We found large price variations for the medical products surveyed (average coefficient of variation of 71%). In general, these differences were hard to explain (average R2 of 26%). Only purchasing volume (for 8 out of 17 products) was significantly associated with the net price paid by a hospital. Total spending for an assortment group (in euros with a specific supplier) and total spending (for all products in euros with a specific supplier) were not related to the net price paid. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that only purchasing volume is associated with lower prices paid. Total spending for an assortment group and total spending for all products purchased from a specific supplier are not. These results are in stark contrast to expectations based on economic theory. Other sources of differences in bargaining power might explain these findings. Further research might involve comparing prices across countries.

A comparative carbon footprint analysis of disposable and reusable vaginal specula.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems in the United States have increasingly turned toward the use of disposable medical equipment in an attempt to save time, lower costs, and reduce the transmission of infections. However, the use of disposable instruments is associated with increased solid waste production and may have negative impacts on the environment, such as increased greenhouse gas emissions. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to inform this discussion; we applied life cycle assessment methods to evaluate the carbon footprints of 3 vaginal specula: a single-use acrylic model and 2 reusable stainless steel models. STUDY DESIGN: The functional unit of the study was defined as the completion of 20 gynecologic examinations by either type of speculum. The greenhouse gas emissions (eg, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) across all life cycle stages, which includes material production and manufacturing, transportation, use and reprocessing, and end-of-life, were analyzed with the use of SimaPro life cycle assessment software and converted into carbon dioxide equivalents. RESULTS: The reusable stainless steel grade 304 speculum was found to have a lesser carbon footprint over multiple model scenarios (different reprocessing techniques, autoclave loading/efficiency, and number of uses) than either the reusable stainless steel grade 316 or the disposable acrylic specula. The material production and manufacturing phase contributed most heavily to the total life cycle carbon footprint of the acrylic speculum, whereas the use and reprocessing phase contributed most to the carbon footprints of both stainless steel specula. CONCLUSION: The use of disposable vaginal specula is associated with increased greenhouse gas equivalents compared with reusable alternatives with no significant difference in clinical utility. These findings can be used to inform decision-making by healthcare systems, because they weigh a wide range of considerations in making final purchase decisions; similar analytic methods can and should be applied to other components of health systems' waste streams.

Economic impact of decreasing the fraction number in vaginal cuff brachytherapy: A direct cost analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the direct economic impact of two vaginal cuff brachytherapy (VBT) schedules in postoperative endometrial carcinoma (PEC) with similar vaginal control and toxicity results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2006 to 2015, 397 PEC patients (p) were treated with VBT: mean 40p/year, 67.5% received external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)+VBT and 32.5% exclusive VBT. Schedule 1: 3 fractions (Fr) after EBRT and 6Fr (4-6 Gy/Fr) in exclusive VBT. Schedule 2: 7Gy × 1Fr + EBRT and 6Gy × 3Fr in exclusive VBT. Differential cost analysis of the two schedules was retrospectively performed. The direct costs in each schedule were (1) Personnel: radiotherapy technicians, nurses, radiation oncologists, medical physicists, administrative personnel, orderlies; time dedicated by each professional during CT planning acquisitions and delineation of vagina/organs at risk, dosimetric study and evaluation, autoradiography, procedure reporting time during/after treatment, removal of bladder/rectal tubes and applicators, material cleaning and transportation for sterilization; (2) Health care material (gels, gauzes, gloves, etc); (3) Equipment (time equipment used). The differential between the two schedules was estimated. Indirect costs and evaluation of quality of life-adjusted costs were not considered. RESULTS: The overall reduction in the number of Fr per year in Schedule 2 was 93. Cost savings included treatment time per year: 4,185 min (70 h); personnel: 221€ ($246)/p in EBRT + VBT and 331€ ($368)/p in exclusive VBT; and health care material and equipment: 40€ ($44.5)/p in EBRT + VBT and 90€ ($100.2)/p in exclusive VBT. The overall savings per patient was 261€ ($295) in combined treatment and 421€ ($475.7) in exclusive VBT. The total savings per year with Schedule 2 in 40p was 12,503€ ($13,915.8). CONCLUSIONS: A 41% reduction in the fractions number in VBT for PEC allowed economic savings of 261€ ($290.5)/p in combined treatment and 421€ ($475.7)/p in exclusive VBT. Other benefits include patient comfort and fewer treatment visits.

A systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis of reusable vs. single-use flexible bronchoscopes.

The cost effectiveness of reusable vs. single-use flexible bronchoscopy in the peri-operative setting has yet to be determined. We therefore aimed to determine this and hypothesised that single-use flexible bronchoscopes are cost effective compared with reusable flexible bronchoscopes. We conducted a systematic review of the literature, seeking all reports of cross-contamination or infection following reusable bronchoscope use in any clinical setting. We calculated the incidence of these outcomes and then determined the cost per patient of treating clinical consequences of bronchoscope-induced infection. We also performed a micro-costing analysis to quantify the economics of reusable flexible bronchoscopes in the peri-operative setting from a high-throughput tertiary centre. This produced an accurate estimate of the cost per use of reusable flexible bronchoscopes. We then performed a cost effectiveness analysis, combining the data obtained from the systematic review and micro-costing analysis. We included 16 studies, with a reported incidence of cross-contamination or infection of 2.8%. In the micro-costing analysis, the total cost per use of a reusable flexible bronchoscope was calculated to be £249 sterling. The cost per use of a single-use flexible bronchoscope was £220 sterling. The cost effectiveness analysis demonstrated that reusable flexible bronchoscopes have a cost per patient use of £511 sterling due to the costs of treatment of infection. The findings from this study suggest benefits from the use of single-use flexible bronchoscopes in terms of cost effectiveness, cross-contamination and resource utilisation.