A cost comparison of disposable vs reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy
This paper compares the costs of disposable and reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The instrument set considered includes those instruments that are available in both a reusable and disposable form. A market study within the Belgian market was performed in order to compare purchas...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Surgical endoscopy 1996-05, Vol.10 (5), p.520-525 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 525 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 520 |
| container_title | Surgical endoscopy |
| container_volume | 10 |
| creator | DEMOULIN, L KESTELOOT, K PENNINCKX, F |
| description | This paper compares the costs of disposable and reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
The instrument set considered includes those instruments that are available in both a reusable and disposable form. A market study within the Belgian market was performed in order to compare purchase prices. In addition, costs of cleaning, sterilization, wrapping, maintenance, repair, and disposal of waste were calculated. The effects of reusables and disposables were examined by means of a literature overview.
It was calculated that the instrument cost per procedure of a full disposable set is 7.4-27.7 times higher than the cost per procedure with reusables. In comparison with disposables, modular systems ("semidisposable") and mixed use of disposables and reusables reduce costs, but still the cost per procedure remains higher than with reusables. A sensitivity analysis confirmed that these conclusions are robust to the model assumptions. In addition, the available evidence in the literature suggests that reusables do not compromise patient or staff safety.
If reusables are used instead of disposables when performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, considerable savings can be achieved without compromising patient and staff safety. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/BF00188399 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78126829</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>78126829</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-214914ef3dca1e1ff0d0805d98c3ed38ecc664df05c6325d06e2d4da13ce39973</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkEFLxEAMhQdRdF29eBd6EA9CNTPTdmeOq7gqCF4Uj2XMpFhpO7Vphf33juyyXpIH-fJInhBnEq4lwOLmdgUgjdHW7omZzLRKlZJmX8zAakjVwmZH4pj5CwAyK_NDcWiK3GgtZ-J9mWDgMZa2d0PNoUtClfia-8Duo6Hkh5OBpo2uOx6HqaVu5KiTxsWVwBj6GhP8DA3hmkfCMbTrE3FQuYbpdNvn4m11_3r3mD6_PDzdLZ9T1LkaUyXjQRlV2qOTJKsKPBjIvTWoyWtDiEWR-QpyLLTKPRSkfOad1Ejx3YWei8uNbz-E74l4LNuakZrGdRQmLhdGqsIoG8GrDYjxZB6oKvuhbt2wLiWUfymW_ylG-HzrOn205HfoNrY4v9jOHaNrqsF1WPMO02ChsJn-BQCheo4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>78126829</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A cost comparison of disposable vs reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>DEMOULIN, L ; KESTELOOT, K ; PENNINCKX, F</creator><creatorcontrib>DEMOULIN, L ; KESTELOOT, K ; PENNINCKX, F</creatorcontrib><description>This paper compares the costs of disposable and reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
The instrument set considered includes those instruments that are available in both a reusable and disposable form. A market study within the Belgian market was performed in order to compare purchase prices. In addition, costs of cleaning, sterilization, wrapping, maintenance, repair, and disposal of waste were calculated. The effects of reusables and disposables were examined by means of a literature overview.
It was calculated that the instrument cost per procedure of a full disposable set is 7.4-27.7 times higher than the cost per procedure with reusables. In comparison with disposables, modular systems ("semidisposable") and mixed use of disposables and reusables reduce costs, but still the cost per procedure remains higher than with reusables. A sensitivity analysis confirmed that these conclusions are robust to the model assumptions. In addition, the available evidence in the literature suggests that reusables do not compromise patient or staff safety.
If reusables are used instead of disposables when performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, considerable savings can be achieved without compromising patient and staff safety.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0930-2794</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2218</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/BF00188399</identifier><identifier>PMID: 8658331</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SUREEX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Springer</publisher><subject>Belgium ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - economics ; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - instrumentation ; Costs and Cost Analysis ; Disposable Equipment - economics ; Equipment Reuse - economics ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments</subject><ispartof>Surgical endoscopy, 1996-05, Vol.10 (5), p.520-525</ispartof><rights>1996 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-214914ef3dca1e1ff0d0805d98c3ed38ecc664df05c6325d06e2d4da13ce39973</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,776,780,785,786,23909,23910,25118,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=3090694$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8658331$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>DEMOULIN, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KESTELOOT, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PENNINCKX, F</creatorcontrib><title>A cost comparison of disposable vs reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy</title><title>Surgical endoscopy</title><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><description>This paper compares the costs of disposable and reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
The instrument set considered includes those instruments that are available in both a reusable and disposable form. A market study within the Belgian market was performed in order to compare purchase prices. In addition, costs of cleaning, sterilization, wrapping, maintenance, repair, and disposal of waste were calculated. The effects of reusables and disposables were examined by means of a literature overview.
It was calculated that the instrument cost per procedure of a full disposable set is 7.4-27.7 times higher than the cost per procedure with reusables. In comparison with disposables, modular systems ("semidisposable") and mixed use of disposables and reusables reduce costs, but still the cost per procedure remains higher than with reusables. A sensitivity analysis confirmed that these conclusions are robust to the model assumptions. In addition, the available evidence in the literature suggests that reusables do not compromise patient or staff safety.
If reusables are used instead of disposables when performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, considerable savings can be achieved without compromising patient and staff safety.</description><subject>Belgium</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - economics</subject><subject>Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - instrumentation</subject><subject>Costs and Cost Analysis</subject><subject>Disposable Equipment - economics</subject><subject>Equipment Reuse - economics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments</subject><issn>0930-2794</issn><issn>1432-2218</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkEFLxEAMhQdRdF29eBd6EA9CNTPTdmeOq7gqCF4Uj2XMpFhpO7Vphf33juyyXpIH-fJInhBnEq4lwOLmdgUgjdHW7omZzLRKlZJmX8zAakjVwmZH4pj5CwAyK_NDcWiK3GgtZ-J9mWDgMZa2d0PNoUtClfia-8Duo6Hkh5OBpo2uOx6HqaVu5KiTxsWVwBj6GhP8DA3hmkfCMbTrE3FQuYbpdNvn4m11_3r3mD6_PDzdLZ9T1LkaUyXjQRlV2qOTJKsKPBjIvTWoyWtDiEWR-QpyLLTKPRSkfOad1Ejx3YWei8uNbz-E74l4LNuakZrGdRQmLhdGqsIoG8GrDYjxZB6oKvuhbt2wLiWUfymW_ylG-HzrOn205HfoNrY4v9jOHaNrqsF1WPMO02ChsJn-BQCheo4</recordid><startdate>19960501</startdate><enddate>19960501</enddate><creator>DEMOULIN, L</creator><creator>KESTELOOT, K</creator><creator>PENNINCKX, F</creator><general>Springer</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19960501</creationdate><title>A cost comparison of disposable vs reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy</title><author>DEMOULIN, L ; KESTELOOT, K ; PENNINCKX, F</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-214914ef3dca1e1ff0d0805d98c3ed38ecc664df05c6325d06e2d4da13ce39973</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Belgium</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - economics</topic><topic>Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - instrumentation</topic><topic>Costs and Cost Analysis</topic><topic>Disposable Equipment - economics</topic><topic>Equipment Reuse - economics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>DEMOULIN, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KESTELOOT, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PENNINCKX, F</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>DEMOULIN, L</au><au>KESTELOOT, K</au><au>PENNINCKX, F</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A cost comparison of disposable vs reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy</atitle><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><date>1996-05-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>520</spage><epage>525</epage><pages>520-525</pages><issn>0930-2794</issn><eissn>1432-2218</eissn><coden>SUREEX</coden><abstract>This paper compares the costs of disposable and reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
The instrument set considered includes those instruments that are available in both a reusable and disposable form. A market study within the Belgian market was performed in order to compare purchase prices. In addition, costs of cleaning, sterilization, wrapping, maintenance, repair, and disposal of waste were calculated. The effects of reusables and disposables were examined by means of a literature overview.
It was calculated that the instrument cost per procedure of a full disposable set is 7.4-27.7 times higher than the cost per procedure with reusables. In comparison with disposables, modular systems ("semidisposable") and mixed use of disposables and reusables reduce costs, but still the cost per procedure remains higher than with reusables. A sensitivity analysis confirmed that these conclusions are robust to the model assumptions. In addition, the available evidence in the literature suggests that reusables do not compromise patient or staff safety.
If reusables are used instead of disposables when performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, considerable savings can be achieved without compromising patient and staff safety.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>8658331</pmid><doi>10.1007/BF00188399</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0930-2794 |
| ispartof | Surgical endoscopy, 1996-05, Vol.10 (5), p.520-525 |
| issn | 0930-2794 1432-2218 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78126829 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Belgium Biological and medical sciences Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - economics Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - instrumentation Costs and Cost Analysis Disposable Equipment - economics Equipment Reuse - economics Humans Medical sciences Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments |
| title | A cost comparison of disposable vs reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-18T12%3A13%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20cost%20comparison%20of%20disposable%20vs%20reusable%20instruments%20in%20laparoscopic%20cholecystectomy&rft.jtitle=Surgical%20endoscopy&rft.au=DEMOULIN,%20L&rft.date=1996-05-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=520&rft.epage=525&rft.pages=520-525&rft.issn=0930-2794&rft.eissn=1432-2218&rft.coden=SUREEX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/BF00188399&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E78126829%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=78126829&rft_id=info:pmid/8658331&rfr_iscdi=true |