Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps in Gl endoscopy: a cost-minimization analysis

Bourguignon, Celine; Destrumelle, Anne-Sabine; Koch, Stéphane; Grumblat, A.; Carayon, Pierre; Chopard, Christine; Woronoff‐Lemsi, Marie‐Christine

doi:10.1067/mge.2003.341

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10 The cost eff ectiveness of single-use surgical instruments and endoscopes have been controversial throughout the years. [11][12][13][14] However, in more recent years; medical companies are using more economical methods of producing these materials and recent studies have been more favourable towards single-use instruments. 6,[15][16][17][18]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The First UK Experience with Single-use Disposable Flexible Cystoscopes: An In-depth Cost Analysis, Service Delivery and Patient Satisfaction Rate with Ambu® aScope™ 4 Cysto

Wong¹,

Phan²,

Thursby³

et al. 2021

Journal of Endoluminal Endourology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and ObjectiveAmbu® aScope™ 4 Cysto is a single-use disposable flexible cystoscope that allows clinicians to perform the procedure at any time and any place. It simplifies workflow, frees up resources and allows clinicians to treat more patients. Our trust became the first in the UK and Europe to utilise these cystoscopes. An in-depth evaluation was performed to test its practicality, cost analysis and patient satisfaction against traditional reusable flexible cystoscopes. Material and MethodsWe compared the cost of using Ambu® aScope™ 4 Cysto to perform flexible cystoscopies in 20 patients prospectively against traditional flexible cystoscopes in 20 patients retrospectively. The cost of the equip-ment, reprocessing, cleaning supplies and maintenance were consulted from relevant departments and companies. All prospective patients were also given a patient satisfaction questionnaire to complete. An unpaired t-test was used to analyse the data. ResultsOur study revealed that it costs £135.23 and £166.33 on average to perform a flexible cystoscopy using Ambu® aScope™ 4 Cysto and the traditional flexible cystoscopes, respectively. Our patient survey revealed that there was a statistical significance between the patient experience using the single-use disposable scopes compared with the traditional reusable flexible cystoscopes (P = 0.0455). Further, 95% of patients also preferred a single-use disposable cystoscope over traditional reusable ones, given the option. ConclusionSingle-use disposable flexible cystoscopes are a safe and cost-efficient method of performing the procedure. It is portable and proves to be a simple, efficient and practical way of performing a flexible cystoscopy in an inpatient, outpatient, or emergency setting.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The First UK Experience with Single-use Disposable Flexible Cystoscopes: An In-depth Cost Analysis, Service Delivery and Patient Satisfaction Rate with Ambu® aScope™ 4 Cysto

Wong¹,

Phan²,

Thursby³

et al. 2021

Journal of Endoluminal Endourology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other papers in this category report on current reuse and reprocessing practices in different medical facilities and regions [13][14][15], while others focus more on logistical and implementation aspects of reprocessing [16,17]. Several studies have examined the costs and benefits of reusable devices versus disposable devices [18][19][20], and while they touch on some related issues, they do not directly address the question posed by this paper. First, they do not address the issue of reprocessing, which involves reusing devices which are labeled as disposable.…”

Section: Relevant Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Safety-cost trade-offs in medical device reuse: a Markov decision process model

Sloan

2006

Health Care Manage Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Healthcare expenditures in the US are approaching 2 trillion dollars, and hospitals and other healthcare providers are under tremendous pressure to rein in costs. One cost-saving approach which is gaining popularity is the reuse of medical devices which were designed only for a single use. Device makers decry this practice as unsanitary and unsafe, but a growing number of third-party firms are willing to sterilize, refurbish, and/or remanufacture devices and resell them to hospitals at a fraction of the original price. Is this practice safe? Is reliance on single-use devices sustainable? A Markov decision process (MDP) model is formulated to study the trade-offs involved in these decisions. Several key parameters are examined: device costs, device failure probabilities, and failure penalty cost. For each of these parameters, expressions are developed which identify the indifference point between using new and reprocessed devices. The results can be used to inform the debate on the economic, ethical, legal, and environmental dimensions of this complex issue.

show abstract

“…The previous studies using similar method for cost analysis reported higher ($11.77 and $16.56) reprocessing cost per use 8,9. Another studies analyzing annual total cost reported $3.25 and $4.39 for reprocessing cost per use 10,11. Reusable biopsy forceps require a significant cost for reprocessing, which might be influenced by multiple factors such as the number of biopsy, expendables, method of sterilization, labor cost and method of calculation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Performance and Cost of Disposable Biopsy Forceps in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Comparison with Reusable Biopsy Forceps

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/AimsIt is believed that disposable biopsy forceps are more costly than reusable biopsy forceps. In this study, we evaluated performance and cost of disposable forceps versus reusable forceps in esophagogastroduodenoscopic biopsy.MethodsBetween October 2009 and July 2010, we enrolled 200 patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopic biopsy at Seoul St. Mary's Hospital. Biopsies were performed with 100 disposable or 5 reusable forceps by random assignment. Seventy-five additional patients were studied to estimate durability of reusable forceps. The assisting nurses estimated the performance of the forceps. The evaluation of costs included purchase prices and reprocessing costs. The adequacy of the sample was estimated according to the diameter of the obtained tissue.ResultsPerformance of disposable forceps was estimated as excellent in 97.0%, good in 2.0% and adequate in 1.0%. Reusable forceps were estimated as excellent in 36.0%, good in 36.0%, adequate in 25.1% and inadequate in 2.9%. The performance of reusable forceps declined with the number of uses. The reprocessing cost of reusable forceps for one biopsy session was calculated as ₩8,021. The adequacy of the sample was excellent for both forceps.ConclusionsDisposable forceps showed excellent performance. Considering the reprocessing costs of reusable forceps, usage of disposable forceps with a low price should be considered.

show abstract

Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps in Gl endoscopy: a cost-minimization analysis

Cited by 14 publications

References 14 publications

The First UK Experience with Single-use Disposable Flexible Cystoscopes: An In-depth Cost Analysis, Service Delivery and Patient Satisfaction Rate with Ambu® aScope™ 4 Cysto

The First UK Experience with Single-use Disposable Flexible Cystoscopes: An In-depth Cost Analysis, Service Delivery and Patient Satisfaction Rate with Ambu® aScope™ 4 Cysto

Safety-cost trade-offs in medical device reuse: a Markov decision process model

Performance and Cost of Disposable Biopsy Forceps in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Comparison with Reusable Biopsy Forceps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About