Cargando…

Cost-effective Alternative for Negative-pressure Wound Therapy

BACKGROUND: Current predominantly used equipments for negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are expensive. In current healthcare climate continually emphasizing cost containment, importance in developing more cost-effective alternatives cannot be understated. Previously, therapeutically equivalent...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Jeff J., Franczyk, Mieczyslawa, Gottlieb, Lawrence J., Song, David H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5340473/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28280658
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001211
_version_ 1782512837470453760
author Kim, Jeff J.
Franczyk, Mieczyslawa
Gottlieb, Lawrence J.
Song, David H.
author_facet Kim, Jeff J.
Franczyk, Mieczyslawa
Gottlieb, Lawrence J.
Song, David H.
author_sort Kim, Jeff J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Current predominantly used equipments for negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are expensive. In current healthcare climate continually emphasizing cost containment, importance in developing more cost-effective alternatives cannot be understated. Previously, therapeutically equivalent methods of providing NPWT was demonstrated using just low-cost, universally available supplies, coined Gauze-SUCtion (GSUC). Here, we examine long-term potential financial savings of utilizing GSUC over commercialized products. METHODS: A retrospective cost analysis was performed at the University of Chicago Medical Center between 1999 and 2014. All NPWT was provided via either GSUC or commercialized vacuum-assisted closure (VAC, KCI) device. Sum of all material component costs were reviewed to determine theoretical average daily cost. For the VAC group, recorded institutional spend to KCI was also reviewed to determine actual daily cost. In the GSUC group, this figure was extrapolated using similar ratios. Labor costs for each method were determined using analysis from prior study. Patient demographics, etiology, wound location, and treatment length were also reviewed. RESULTS: Total of 35,871 days of NPWT was provided during the 15-year span. Theoretical average cost of VAC was $94.01/d versus $3.61/d for GSUC, whereas actual average was $111.18/d versus $4.26/d. Average labor cost was $20.11/dressing change versus $12.32. Combined, total cost of VAC therapy was estimated at $119,224 per every 1,000 days of therapy versus $9,188 for the GSUC. CONCLUSIONS: There is clear and significant cost savings from utilization of GSUC method of NPWT. Furthermore, the added advantage of being able to provide NPWT from universally accessible materials cannot be overstated.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5340473
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53404732017-03-09 Cost-effective Alternative for Negative-pressure Wound Therapy Kim, Jeff J. Franczyk, Mieczyslawa Gottlieb, Lawrence J. Song, David H. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Special Topic BACKGROUND: Current predominantly used equipments for negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are expensive. In current healthcare climate continually emphasizing cost containment, importance in developing more cost-effective alternatives cannot be understated. Previously, therapeutically equivalent methods of providing NPWT was demonstrated using just low-cost, universally available supplies, coined Gauze-SUCtion (GSUC). Here, we examine long-term potential financial savings of utilizing GSUC over commercialized products. METHODS: A retrospective cost analysis was performed at the University of Chicago Medical Center between 1999 and 2014. All NPWT was provided via either GSUC or commercialized vacuum-assisted closure (VAC, KCI) device. Sum of all material component costs were reviewed to determine theoretical average daily cost. For the VAC group, recorded institutional spend to KCI was also reviewed to determine actual daily cost. In the GSUC group, this figure was extrapolated using similar ratios. Labor costs for each method were determined using analysis from prior study. Patient demographics, etiology, wound location, and treatment length were also reviewed. RESULTS: Total of 35,871 days of NPWT was provided during the 15-year span. Theoretical average cost of VAC was $94.01/d versus $3.61/d for GSUC, whereas actual average was $111.18/d versus $4.26/d. Average labor cost was $20.11/dressing change versus $12.32. Combined, total cost of VAC therapy was estimated at $119,224 per every 1,000 days of therapy versus $9,188 for the GSUC. CONCLUSIONS: There is clear and significant cost savings from utilization of GSUC method of NPWT. Furthermore, the added advantage of being able to provide NPWT from universally accessible materials cannot be overstated. Wolters Kluwer Health 2017-02-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5340473/ /pubmed/28280658 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001211 Text en Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Special Topic
Kim, Jeff J.
Franczyk, Mieczyslawa
Gottlieb, Lawrence J.
Song, David H.
Cost-effective Alternative for Negative-pressure Wound Therapy
title Cost-effective Alternative for Negative-pressure Wound Therapy
title_full Cost-effective Alternative for Negative-pressure Wound Therapy
title_fullStr Cost-effective Alternative for Negative-pressure Wound Therapy
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effective Alternative for Negative-pressure Wound Therapy
title_short Cost-effective Alternative for Negative-pressure Wound Therapy
title_sort cost-effective alternative for negative-pressure wound therapy
topic Special Topic
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5340473/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28280658
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001211
work_keys_str_mv AT kimjeffj costeffectivealternativefornegativepressurewoundtherapy
AT franczykmieczyslawa costeffectivealternativefornegativepressurewoundtherapy
AT gottlieblawrencej costeffectivealternativefornegativepressurewoundtherapy
AT songdavidh costeffectivealternativefornegativepressurewoundtherapy