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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ottardi, Claudia, Damonti, Alessio, Porazzi, Emanuele, Foglia, Emanuela, Ferrario, Lucrezia, Villa, Tomaso, Aimar, Enrico, Brayda-Bruno, Marco, Galbusera, Fabio
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