What is the cost burden of surgical implant waste? An analysis of surgical implant waste in an orthopedics and trauma surgery department of a French university hospital in 2016.

BACKGROUND

During an orthopedic or trauma surgery procedure, when an implantable medical device is unpackaged, not implanted and cannot be resterilized, it is considered "waste". The cost burden falls on the hospital. The French Social Security Code provides for add-on reimbursement for certain expensive or very specialized devices (supplementary list of costly implants). To allow its restocking without linking it to a patient or reimbursement request, the wasted implant is tracked in a computerized database. The economic impact of these wasted implants is not known in France. This led us to conduct a retrospective study: 1) to determine the percentage and number of wasted implants, 2) to identify elements related to the surgery that impact implant waste.

HYPOTHESIS

Various elements of the surgical environment (type of procedure, specialty, surgeon experience, time of year) can independently contribute to the non-implantation of a medical device.

METHODS

We carried out a retrospective observational study of data collected prospectively in the database of our teaching hospital in 2016. The primary outcome was the percentage of wasted implants. The secondary outcome was the mean cost of these wasted implants. These parameters were determined for all the implants used in orthopedics and trauma surgery and tracked in this department, then for each variable hypothesized to led to non-implantation. Our analysis was descriptive, then comparative.

RESULTS

In our database, 29,073 devices were tracked (€3,761,180), of which 1995 devices were wasted (6.9%). The total cost of the wasted implants was €179,193 (4.8% of the overall cost). The breakdown of the wasted implants was 430 (4.4%) from the add-on list (average cost of €293.10) versus 1565 implants associated with the hospital's diagnosis-related group payment system (average cost of €33.90). Trauma surgery procedures had significantly more wasted implants than orthopedic surgery (1135 vs. 860 (p<0.01)), although the individual cost was less (€59.20 vs. €130.10 (p<0.01)). Fracture fixation implants were more likely to be wasted than ligament reconstruction or arthroplasty implants, with a lower mean cost. More implants were wasted during hip arthroplasty than during other arthroplasty procedures. Less experienced surgeons wasted more implants than more experienced surgeons (1087 vs. 905 (p<0.01)) but these implants cost less (€69.20 vs. €114.80 (p<0.05)). The percentage of implants wasted was higher during the resident changeover period relative to the other months of the year (772 vs. 1223 (p<0.01)).

DISCUSSION

This study is the first attempt at quantifying the number and cost of wasted implants in the context of orthopedics and trauma surgery at a teaching hospital in France. While trauma surgery is associated with more wasted implants, the cost burden is higher in orthopedics. Surgeons, by virtue of their experience and teaching mandate, have a decisive role managing this cost burden.

TYPE OF STUDY

IV, Retrospective study.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.