A micro-costing analysis of outpatient flexible cystoscopy: implications for adoption of single-use flexible cystoscopes.
Cost
Cystoscope reprocessing
Micro-costing
Reusable flexible cystoscopes
Single-use flexible cystoscopes
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
31
01
2021
accepted:
03
05
2021
pubmed:
22
5
2021
medline:
19
2
2022
entrez:
21
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the total cost of outpatient flexible cystoscopy associated with reusable device purchase, maintenance, and reprocessing, and to assess potential cost benefits of single-use flexible cystoscopes. Cost data regarding the purchasing, maintaining, and reprocessing of reusable flexible cystoscopes were collected using a micro-costing approach at a high-volume outpatient urology clinic. We estimated the costs to facilities with a range of annual procedure volumes (1000-3000) performed with a fleet of cystoscopes ranging from 10 to 25. We also compared the total cost per double-J ureteral stent removal procedure performed using single-use flexible cystoscopes versus reusable devices. The cost associated with reusable flexible cystoscopes ranged from $105 to $224 per procedure depending on the annual procedure volume and cystoscopes available. As a practice became more efficient by increasing the ratio of procedures performed to cystoscopes in the fleet, the proportion of the total cost due to cystoscope reprocessing increased from 22 to 46%. For ureteral stent removal procedures, the total cost per procedure using reusable cystoscopes (range $165-$1469) was higher than that using single-use devices ($244-$420), unless the annual procedure volume was sufficiently high relative to the number of reusable cystoscopes in the fleet (≥ 350 for a practice with ten reusable cystoscopes, ≥ 700 for one with 20 devices). The cost of reprocessing reusable cystoscopes represents a large fraction of the total cost per procedure, especially for high-volume facilities. It may be economical to adopt single-use cystoscopes specifically for stent removal procedures, especially for lower-volume facilities.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34019137
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03724-3
pii: 10.1007/s00345-021-03724-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4275-4281Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
McGill JJ, Schaeffer AJ, Gonzalez CM (2013) Durability of flexible cystoscopes in the outpatient setting. Urology 5:932–937
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.029
Clemens JQ, Dowling R, Foley F, Goldman HB, Gonzalez CM et al (2010) Joint AUA/SUNA white paper on reprocessing of flexible cystoscopes. J Urol 6:2241–2245
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.001
Almallah YZ, Rennie CD, Stone J, Lancashire MJR (2000) Urinary tract infection and patient satisfaction after flexible cystoscopy and urodynamic evaluation. Urology 1:37–39
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00555-0
Herr HW (2015) The risk of urinary tract infection after flexible cystoscopy in patients with bladder tumor who did not receive prophylactic antibiotics. J Urol 2:548–551
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.015
Wendelboe AM, Baumbach J, Blossom DB, Frank P, Srinivasan A et al (2008) Outbreak of cystoscopy related infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa: New Mexico, 2007. J Urol 2:588–592
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.04.003
Sorbets E, Evrevin M, Jumas-Bilak E, Masnou A, Lotthé A et al (2019) An outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa urinary tract infections following outpatient flexible cystoscopy. Am J Infect Control 12:1510–1512
doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2019.05.005
McCombie SP, Carmichael JP, Banerjee S, Wood SJ (2013) Urinary tract infection following flexible cystoscopy: a comparison between sterilised cystoscopes and disposable sterile sheaths. J Clin Urol 4:220–224
doi: 10.1177/2051415812472678
Zambon JP, Watkins TP, Hemal A, Evans RJ, Gutierrez-Aceves J et al (2019) Evaluation of clinical use and cost-effectiveness of a flexible cystoscope system with a disposable sheath: a randomized clinical trial. Urol Pract 4:209–214
doi: 10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000019
Doizi S, Kamphuis G, Giusti G, Palmero JL, Patterson JM et al (2017) First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible cystoscope dedicated to double-J stent removal (Isiris
doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1986-0
Oderda M, Antolini J, Falcone M, Lacquaniti S, Fasolis G (2020) Cost-effectiveness analysis of a single-use digital flexible cystoscope for double J removal. Urol J 1:29–34
doi: 10.1177/0391560319859797
Xuo X, Nardini HKG, Ruger JP (2014) Micro-costing studies in the health and medical literature: protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev 3(1):1–7
doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-1
Larsen S, Kalloo A, Hutfless S (2019) The hidden cost of colonoscopy including cost of reprocessing and infection rate: the implications for disposable colonoscopes. Gut 2:197–200
Ofstead C, Quick M, Eiland J, Adams S (2017) A Glimpse at the true cost of reprocessing endoscopes: results of a pilot project
Burke DM, Shackley DC, O’Reilly PH (2002) The community-based morbidity of flexible cystoscopy. BJU Int 4:347–349
doi: 10.1046/j.1464-4096.2001.01899.x
Beebe SC, Jenkins LC, Posid T, Knudsen BE, Sourial MW (2020) Single-use grasper integrated flexible cystoscope for stent removal: a micro-costing analysis-based comparison. J Endourol 8:816–820
doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0144
Lilholt Sørensen B (2018) Comparative study on environmental impacts of reusable and single-use bronchoscopes. Am J Environ Prot 4:55–62
doi: 10.11648/j.ajep.20180704.11