Masques laryngés à usage unique vs réutilisable : une étude de minimisation de coûts

Example of cost calculations for an operating room and a post-anaesthesia care unit

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost of an operating room using data from our hospital. Using an accounting-based method helped us.

METHODS

Over the year 2012, the sum of direct and indirect expenses with cost sharing expenses allowed us to calculate the cost of the operating room (OR) and of the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU).

RESULTS

The cost of the OR and PACU was €10.8 per minute of time offered. Two thirds of the direct expenses were allocated to surgery and one third to anaesthesia. Indirect expenses were 25% of the direct expenses. The cost of medications and single use medical devises was €111.45 per anaesthesia. The total cost of anaesthesia (taking into account wages and indirect expenses) was €753.14 per anaesthesia as compared to the total cost of the anaesthesia. The part of medications and single use devices for anaesthesia was 14.8% of the total cost.

CONCLUSION

Despite the difficulties facing cost evaluation, this model of calculation, assisted by the cost accounting controller, helped us to have a concrete financial vision. It also shows that a global reflexion is necessary during financial decision-making.

[About laryngeal mask: is the lowest price material the better cost-efficacy choice?]

OBJECTIVE

The main goal of this study was to achieve a medico-economic comparison between four disposable laryngeal masks (LM) (LMA-Unique™, Ambu AuraOnce™, I-Gel™ and LMA-Suprême™).

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, monocentre study.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a center, using routinely LMA-Unique masks, scheduled breast surgery patients were allocated into four groups according to the LM model. After the induction, the modalities of use were collected, as well as the intraoperative events that required additional anesthetic equipment. The real cost of each model was calculated (cost of the mask+extra cost related to complications). Using the LMA-Unique as a reference, we performed a cost-efficacy analysis. We realized a cost-efficiency analysis putting in parallel the impact on the cost and the incidence of the events.

RESULTS

A total of 178 patients were included. According to the cost-efficacy analysis, the dominant model was the Ambu AuraOnce™ (Δreal cost: -34.2%, Δevents: -30.6%). The LMA-Unique™ was dominated because of a high morbidity rate. The I-Gel™ and LMA-Suprême™ models were more efficient but more expensive (Δreal cost: +16% and +22.5% respectively). To compensate for additional costs, it would be necessary to apply a price reduction of at least 50%.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite their better efficiency and safety, the latest generation laryngeal masks are still expensive in spite of a low rate of complication. These results do not take into account very rare and severe complications not met in this study in the limited size; then the economic and medical impact can influence the choice beyond the simple analysis cost-efficiency.

Comparative life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable laryngeal mask airways

BACKGROUND

Growing awareness of the negative impacts from the practice of health care on the environment and public health calls for the routine inclusion of life cycle criteria into the decision-making process of device selection. Here we present a life cycle assessment of 2 laryngeal mask airways (LMAs), a one-time-use disposable Unique™ LMA and a 40-time-use reusable Classic™ LMA.

METHODS

In life cycle assessment, the basis of comparison is called the "functional unit." For this report, the functional unit of the disposable and reusable LMAs was taken to be maintenance of airway patency by 40 disposable LMAs or 40 uses of 1 reusable LMA. This was a cradle-to-grave study that included inputs and outputs for the manufacture, transport, use, and waste phases of the LMAs. The environmental impacts of the 2 LMAs were estimated using SimaPro life cycle assessment software and the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability impact assessment method. Sensitivity and simple life cycle cost analyses were conducted to aid in interpretation of the results.

RESULTS

The reusable LMA was found to have a more favorable environmental profile than the disposable LMA as used at Yale New Haven Hospital. The most important sources of impacts for the disposable LMA were the production of polymers, packaging, and waste management, whereas for the reusable LMA, washing and sterilization dominated for most impact categories.

DISCUSSION

The differences in environmental impacts between these devices strongly favor reusable devices. These benefits must be weighed against concerns regarding transmission of infection. Health care facilities can decrease their environmental impacts by using reusable LMAs, to a lesser extent by selecting disposable LMA models that are not made of certain plastics, and by ordering in bulk from local distributors. Certain practices would further reduce the environmental impacts of reusable LMAs, such as increasing the number of devices autoclaved in a single cycle to 10 (-25% GHG emissions) and improving the energy efficiency of the autoclaving machines by 10% (-8% GHG emissions). For both environmental and cost considerations, management and operating procedures should be put in place to ensure that reusable LMAs are not discarded prematurely.

[Tracheal intubation through the intubating laryngeal mask airway training on manikin: comparison of single use and reusable devices from the same manufacturer]

INTRODUCTION

Recently, the French Society for Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (SFAR) has updated algorithms for difficult airway management, in which, the place of the intubating laryngeal mask (ILMA) is well defined. Moreover, in the guidelines, the SFAR recommended that the training for the different techniques for difficult intubation should initially be achieved on manikins. However, few data are available for disposable ILMA learning process on manikins.

STUDY DESIGN

To compare, on manikin, the learning curves of the disposable and reusable ILMA.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Forty operators (anaesthesiologist, nurse, resident), experienced with conventional tracheal intubation but novice to commercially available ILMAs (Sebac, Pantin, France), underwent videotape learning and manikin training. After randomisation, each participant had to perform 10 timed consecutive tracheal intubations with either reusable or disposable ILMA. The learning curve was built according to the duration of successful procedure. Failure was considered if tracheal intubation could not be achieved or if the procedure lasted more than five minutes.

RESULTS

No difference was noted between the two groups in terms of learning curves, number and repartition of the failed attempts during the learning process.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that both disposable and reusable ILMA share similar learning process on manikins. Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficiency of the disposable ILMA in the clinical field of difficult intubation.