The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Decreasing cost of flexible ureterorenoscopy: single-use laser fiber cost analysis

Decreasing cost of flexible ureterorenoscopy: single-use laser fiber cost analysis
Decreasing cost of flexible ureterorenoscopy: single-use laser fiber cost analysis
Objective

To demonstrate a cost benefit while using disposable laser fibers as compared with reusable laser fibers. Flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) is a central component of endourology. It is vital that for service provision and training purposes, costs are kept down while delivering this service. Laser fibers are known to damage scopes causing high repair and/or replacement costs.

Materials and Methods

Data for consecutive FURS procedures during 2 periods in a single center were compared. First, with the use of reusable fibers and second, with single-use fibers. Cost of laser fibers and repairs was recorded. The study excludes the cost of the initial purchase of the ureterorenoscopes or the holmium laser equipment and costs associated with staffing and hospital stay.

Results

The total number of FURS carried out in period 1 and period 2 was 260 and 265, respectively. A total of 13 reusable (185 procedures) and 168 disposable laser fibers were used in these 2 periods, respectively. There was a reduction in laser damaged ureteroscopes from 9 to 3 in the second period. This resulted in a £16,800 reduction in repair cost. This more than offsets the increased costs of single-use fibers.

Conclusion

On the basis of our data, it is more cost-effective to use a disposable laser fiber, as it prevents scope damage, which can happen because of microfractures with repeated laser use. Moreover, this will also save time and/or resource required with sterilization.

Costs and Cost Analysis, Disposable Equipment, Equipment Design, Humans, Kidney, Lasers, Time Factors, Ureteroscopes, Ureteroscopy, Comparative Study, Journal Article
0090-4295
1003-1005
Chapman, R A
e74a000f-babe-4fd8-ad9e-64f2ec405724
Somani, B K
ab5fd1ce-02df-4b88-b25e-8ece396335d9
Robertson, A
436dd2ba-202e-4794-a817-bfb569417486
Healy, S
24afa19a-0068-4425-820d-ec53596c8ef0
Kata, S G
bb011d0d-01f0-4c99-ac40-e8db8d4ef4d0
Chapman, R A
e74a000f-babe-4fd8-ad9e-64f2ec405724
Somani, B K
ab5fd1ce-02df-4b88-b25e-8ece396335d9
Robertson, A
436dd2ba-202e-4794-a817-bfb569417486
Healy, S
24afa19a-0068-4425-820d-ec53596c8ef0
Kata, S G
bb011d0d-01f0-4c99-ac40-e8db8d4ef4d0

Chapman, R A, Somani, B K, Robertson, A, Healy, S and Kata, S G (2014) Decreasing cost of flexible ureterorenoscopy: single-use laser fiber cost analysis. Urology, 83 (5), 1003-1005. (doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.12.019).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objective

To demonstrate a cost benefit while using disposable laser fibers as compared with reusable laser fibers. Flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) is a central component of endourology. It is vital that for service provision and training purposes, costs are kept down while delivering this service. Laser fibers are known to damage scopes causing high repair and/or replacement costs.

Materials and Methods

Data for consecutive FURS procedures during 2 periods in a single center were compared. First, with the use of reusable fibers and second, with single-use fibers. Cost of laser fibers and repairs was recorded. The study excludes the cost of the initial purchase of the ureterorenoscopes or the holmium laser equipment and costs associated with staffing and hospital stay.

Results

The total number of FURS carried out in period 1 and period 2 was 260 and 265, respectively. A total of 13 reusable (185 procedures) and 168 disposable laser fibers were used in these 2 periods, respectively. There was a reduction in laser damaged ureteroscopes from 9 to 3 in the second period. This resulted in a £16,800 reduction in repair cost. This more than offsets the increased costs of single-use fibers.

Conclusion

On the basis of our data, it is more cost-effective to use a disposable laser fiber, as it prevents scope damage, which can happen because of microfractures with repeated laser use. Moreover, this will also save time and/or resource required with sterilization.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Published date: May 2014
Additional Information: Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Costs and Cost Analysis, Disposable Equipment, Equipment Design, Humans, Kidney, Lasers, Time Factors, Ureteroscopes, Ureteroscopy, Comparative Study, Journal Article

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 419113
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/419113
ISSN: 0090-4295
PURE UUID: 39ebe596-2c6d-4883-8413-6503e15fe81f

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 05 Apr 2018 16:30
Last modified: 13 Mar 2019 18:44

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×