ArticleEye (London, England)2018
Quantifying the real-world cost saving from using surgical adjuncts to prevent complications during cataract surgery.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- National Access to EyeSi Simulation: A Comparative Study Among U.S. Ophthalmology Residency Programs.Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) · 2023Article
- Cost and time resourcing for ophthalmic simulation in the UK: a Royal College of Ophthalmologists' National Survey of regional Simulation Leads in 2021.Eye (London, England) · 2022Article
- Confidence of UK Ophthalmology Registrars in Managing Posterior Capsular Rupture: Results from a National Trainee Survey.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2022Article
- Engagement with ophthalmic simulation training has increased following COVID-19 disruption-the educational culture change required?Eye (London, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSurgical adjuncts in cataract surgery are often perceived as sometimes necessary, always expensive, particularly in the "lean" cost-saving era. However, prevention of a surgical complication, rather than subsequent management, should always be the preferred strategy. We wished to model real-world costs associated with surgical adjuncts use and test the maxim for cataract surgery-"if you think of it, use it".
methodsWe compared UK list prices for equipment and related costs of preventing vitreous loss (VL) via use of surgical adjuncts vs its subsequent management in a hypothetical cataract surgery scenario of a white swollen cataract with a moderately dilated pupil.
resultsThe original surgery costs for the "cautious with adjuncts, no complications" approach was £943.54, including adjuncts costing £137.47. In the "minimalist, no adjunct" scenario, management of VL using the Anterior Vitrectomy Kit cost £142.45, and additional management and follow-up costs resulted in total cost of £1178.20 (£234.66 (25%) more expensive). If left aphakic, an additional operation for secondary iris clip IOL insertion and further follow-up to address the impact of the complication ultimately cost £2124.67 overall. An additional initial spend on surgical adjuncts of £137.47 could potentially prevent £1293.60 (9× increase) in direct costs in this scenario.
conclusionsThrough simple scenario modelling, we have demonstrated the cost benefits provided by the use of precautionary surgical adjuncts during cataract surgery. VL costs significantly more in terms of complication management and follow-up. This supports the cataract surgeon's maxim-"if you think of it, use it".
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.