Comparaison de coûts de deux modalités de retraitement des urétéroscopes souples au CHU de Dijon

Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study

The purpose of this study is to analyze clinical outcomes and costs of single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes in comparison with reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes in a tertiary referral center. Prospectively, 68 flexible ureterorenoscopies utilizing reusable (Flex-X2S, Flex-X^C, Karl Storz) and 68 applying single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes (LithoVue, Boston Scientific) were collected. Clinical outcome parameters such as overall success rate, complication rates according to Clavien-Dindo, operation time and radiation exposure time were measured. Cost analysis was based on purchase costs and recurrent costs for repair and reprocessing divided by number of procedures. In each group 68 procedures were available for evaluation. In 91% of reusable and 88% of single-use ureterorenoscopies stone disease was treated with a mean stone burden of 101 ± 226 and 90 ± 244 mm² and lower pole involvement in 47 and 41%, respectively (p > 0.05). Comparing clinical outcomes of reusable vs. single-use instruments revealed no significant difference for overall success rates (81 vs. 87%), stone-free rates (82 vs. 85%), operation time (76.2 ± 46.8 vs. 76.8 ± 40.2 min), radiation exposure time (3.83 ± 3.15 vs. 3.93 ± 4.43 min) and complication rates (7 vs. 17%) (p > 0.05). A wide range of repair and purchase costs resulted in total to $1212-$1743 per procedure for reusable ureterorenoscopy whereas price of single-use ureterorenoscopy was $1300-$3180 per procedure. The current work provided evidence for equal clinical effectiveness of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes. Partially overlapping ranges of costs for single-use and reusable scopes stress the importance to precisely know the expenses and caseload when negotiating purchase prices, repair prices and warranty conditions.

Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Data assessing the effectiveness of single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy (FURS) are limited. This study evaluates and compares single-use FURS with conventional reusable FURS.

METHODS

A systematic search using electronic databases (Pubmed and Embase) was performed for studies evaluating single-use FURS in the setting of urinary tract stone disease. Outcome measures included a comparative evaluation of their mechanical, optical and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Eleven studies on 466 patients met inclusion criteria. In vitro comparative data were available on three single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopes (LithoVue™, Polyscope™ and SemiFlex™) and clinical data were available on two (LithoVue™ and Polyscope™). The overall stone-free rate and complication rate associated with single-use FURS was 87 ± 15% and 9.3 ± 9%, respectively. There were no significant differences in procedure duration, stone size, stone clearance and complication rates when single-use FURS and reusable FURS were compared (duration: 73 ± 27 versus 74 ± 13 min, p = 0.99; stone size: 1.36 ± 0.2 versus 1.34 ± 0.18 cm, p = 0.93; stone-free rate: 77.8 ± 18 versus 68.5 ± 33%, p = 0.76; complication rate 15.3 ± 10.6 versus 15 ± 1.6%, p = 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-use FURS demonstrates comparable efficacy with reusable FURS in treating renal calculi. Further studies on clinical efficacy and cost are needed to determine whether single-use FURS will reliably replace its reusable counterpart.

[A comparative cost analysis of single-use versus reusable fiberoptic bronchoscopes: Is single-use fiberscope worth it?]

OBJECTIVE

To present a minimization-cost analysis to compare reusable and single-use fiberscopes in a French health institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The amortization cost assessment has been achieved over a period of five years, and took into account the acquisition and maintenance costs, as well as the costs related to disinfection of reusable fiberscopes. The cost of single-use fiberscopes was calculated according to its acquisition and elimination costs. Finally, we compared the costs of single-use vs. reusable use during nights, weekends and days off to estimate the additional cost of the referencing of single-use fiberscopes for theses specific periods.

RESULTS

The total cost of reusable fiberscopes was 62,511 € including VAT over 5 years whereas the cost of single-use fiberscope was 79,200 € including VAT over 5 years. The total cost of single-use fiberscopes if utilized during nights, weekends and days off was estimated to 19,800 € including VAT over 5 years, with an estimated activity at 15 intubations per year. Conversely, the cost of the utilization of reusable fiberscopes during nights, weekends and days off was estimate to 13,075 € including VAT over 5 years.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the utilization costs of single use and reusable fiberscopes are very close. But because of the benefits of single-use fiberscopes and according to current recommendations, we consider to acquire single-use fiberscope especially for emergencies such as difficult tracheal intubation and for restrictive periods (nights, weekends and day off).

The Economic Implications of a Reusable Flexible Digital Ureteroscope: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

PURPOSE

Questions remain regarding the durability and longevity of flexible ureteroscopes. The objective of this study was to estimate the potential economic benefits of single use, flexible digital ureteroscopes compared to our recent experience with reusable flexible digital ureteroscopes using cost-benefit analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ureteroscopic procedures were prospectively recorded over the 12-month period of February 2014 to February 2015. All flexible ureteroscopies were performed using Flex X^C digital ureteroscopes (Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, El Segundo, California). Cost assessment was based on the original purchasing cost and repair-exchange fees divided by the number of cases. An algorithm was created to include per case reprocessing costs and calculate the benefit-to-cost ratio. This cost was compared to potential costs of the LithoVue™, a single use digital ureteroscope.

RESULTS

In 160 cases a flexible reusable ureteroscope was used. There was damage to 11 ureteroscopes during this time with an average of 12.5 cases to failure. Excluding original purchasing costs, the cost analysis revealed an amortized cost of $848.10 per use. After 99 ureteroscope cases the cost-benefit analysis favored reusable ureteroscopes compared to disposable ureteroscopes.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital ureteroscopes are the latest trend in the evolution of endourology. It appears that a disposable ureteroscope may be cost beneficial at centers with a lower case volume per year. However, institutions with a high volume of cases may find reusable ureteroscopes cost beneficial.