Cargando…
A comparative analysis of a disposable and a reusable pedicle screw instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis: integrating HTA and MCDA
OBJECTIVE: Lumbar arthrodesis is a common surgical technique that consists of the fixation of one or more motion segments with pedicle screws and rods. However, spinal surgery using these techniques is expensive and has a significant impact on the budgets of hospitals and Healthcare Systems. While r...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5415446/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28470542 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561-017-0153-7 |
_version_ | 1783233516404736000 |
---|---|
author | Ottardi, Claudia Damonti, Alessio Porazzi, Emanuele Foglia, Emanuela Ferrario, Lucrezia Villa, Tomaso Aimar, Enrico Brayda-Bruno, Marco Galbusera, Fabio |
author_facet | Ottardi, Claudia Damonti, Alessio Porazzi, Emanuele Foglia, Emanuela Ferrario, Lucrezia Villa, Tomaso Aimar, Enrico Brayda-Bruno, Marco Galbusera, Fabio |
author_sort | Ottardi, Claudia |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Lumbar arthrodesis is a common surgical technique that consists of the fixation of one or more motion segments with pedicle screws and rods. However, spinal surgery using these techniques is expensive and has a significant impact on the budgets of hospitals and Healthcare Systems. While reusable and disposable instruments for laparoscopic interventions have been studied in literature, no specific information exists regarding instrument kits for lumbar arthrodesis. The aim of the present study was to perform a complete health technology assessment comparing a disposable instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis (innovative device) with the standard reusable instrument. METHODS: A prospective and observational study was implemented, by means of investigation of administrative records of patients undergoing a lumbar arthrodesis surgical procedure. The evaluation was conducted in 2013, over a 12- month time horizon, considering all the procedures carried out using the two technologies. A complete health technology assessment and a multi-criteria decision analysis approach were implemented in order to compare the two alternative technologies. Economic impact (with the implementation of an activity based costing approach), social, ethical, organisational, and technology-related aspects were taken into account. RESULTS: Although the cost analysis produced similar results in the comparison of the two technologies (total cost equal to € 4,279.1 and € 4,242.6 for reusable instrument kit and the disposable one respectively), a significant difference between the two instrument kits was noted, in particular concerning the organisational impact and the patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: The replacement of a reusable instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis, with a disposable one, could improve the management of this kind of devices in hospital settings. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5415446 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54154462017-05-19 A comparative analysis of a disposable and a reusable pedicle screw instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis: integrating HTA and MCDA Ottardi, Claudia Damonti, Alessio Porazzi, Emanuele Foglia, Emanuela Ferrario, Lucrezia Villa, Tomaso Aimar, Enrico Brayda-Bruno, Marco Galbusera, Fabio Health Econ Rev Research OBJECTIVE: Lumbar arthrodesis is a common surgical technique that consists of the fixation of one or more motion segments with pedicle screws and rods. However, spinal surgery using these techniques is expensive and has a significant impact on the budgets of hospitals and Healthcare Systems. While reusable and disposable instruments for laparoscopic interventions have been studied in literature, no specific information exists regarding instrument kits for lumbar arthrodesis. The aim of the present study was to perform a complete health technology assessment comparing a disposable instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis (innovative device) with the standard reusable instrument. METHODS: A prospective and observational study was implemented, by means of investigation of administrative records of patients undergoing a lumbar arthrodesis surgical procedure. The evaluation was conducted in 2013, over a 12- month time horizon, considering all the procedures carried out using the two technologies. A complete health technology assessment and a multi-criteria decision analysis approach were implemented in order to compare the two alternative technologies. Economic impact (with the implementation of an activity based costing approach), social, ethical, organisational, and technology-related aspects were taken into account. RESULTS: Although the cost analysis produced similar results in the comparison of the two technologies (total cost equal to € 4,279.1 and € 4,242.6 for reusable instrument kit and the disposable one respectively), a significant difference between the two instrument kits was noted, in particular concerning the organisational impact and the patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: The replacement of a reusable instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis, with a disposable one, could improve the management of this kind of devices in hospital settings. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-05-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5415446/ /pubmed/28470542 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561-017-0153-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Research Ottardi, Claudia Damonti, Alessio Porazzi, Emanuele Foglia, Emanuela Ferrario, Lucrezia Villa, Tomaso Aimar, Enrico Brayda-Bruno, Marco Galbusera, Fabio A comparative analysis of a disposable and a reusable pedicle screw instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis: integrating HTA and MCDA |
title | A comparative analysis of a disposable and a reusable pedicle screw instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis: integrating HTA and MCDA |
title_full | A comparative analysis of a disposable and a reusable pedicle screw instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis: integrating HTA and MCDA |
title_fullStr | A comparative analysis of a disposable and a reusable pedicle screw instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis: integrating HTA and MCDA |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparative analysis of a disposable and a reusable pedicle screw instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis: integrating HTA and MCDA |
title_short | A comparative analysis of a disposable and a reusable pedicle screw instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis: integrating HTA and MCDA |
title_sort | comparative analysis of a disposable and a reusable pedicle screw instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis: integrating hta and mcda |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5415446/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28470542 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561-017-0153-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ottardiclaudia acomparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT damontialessio acomparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT porazziemanuele acomparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT fogliaemanuela acomparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT ferrariolucrezia acomparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT villatomaso acomparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT aimarenrico acomparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT braydabrunomarco acomparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT galbuserafabio acomparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT ottardiclaudia comparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT damontialessio comparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT porazziemanuele comparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT fogliaemanuela comparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT ferrariolucrezia comparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT villatomaso comparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT aimarenrico comparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT braydabrunomarco comparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda AT galbuserafabio comparativeanalysisofadisposableandareusablepediclescrewinstrumentkitforlumbararthrodesisintegratinghtaandmcda |