Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31350650›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2019

Single-use versus reusable medical devices in spinal fusion surgery: a hospital micro-costing analysis.

C Bouthors, J Nguyen, L Durand, A Dubory, S Raspaud, Ch Court

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

C BouthorsOrthopedic and Traumatology Surgery Department (Pr Ch Court), Bicetre University Hospital, AP-HP Paris, Paris-Sud University ORSAY, 78 Rue du Général Leclerc, 94275, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. charlie.bouthors@hotmail.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2525-9305
J NguyenPharmacy and Sterilization Department, Bicetre University Hospital, AP-HP Paris, Paris-Sud University ORSAY, 78 Rue du Général Leclerc, 94275, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
L DurandPharmacy and Sterilization Department, Bicetre University Hospital, AP-HP Paris, Paris-Sud University ORSAY, 78 Rue du Général Leclerc, 94275, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
A DuboryOrthopedic and Traumatology Surgery Department (Pr Ch Court), Bicetre University Hospital, AP-HP Paris, Paris-Sud University ORSAY, 78 Rue du Général Leclerc, 94275, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
S RaspaudPharmacy and Sterilization Department, Bicetre University Hospital, AP-HP Paris, Paris-Sud University ORSAY, 78 Rue du Général Leclerc, 94275, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Ch CourtOrthopedic and Traumatology Surgery Department (Pr Ch Court), Bicetre University Hospital, AP-HP Paris, Paris-Sud University ORSAY, 78 Rue du Général Leclerc, 94275, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Université Paris-Sud · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeHealthcare facilities could minimize the cost of surgical instrument and implant processing by using single-use devices. The main objective was to prospectively compare the total cost of a single-use and reusable device used in short lumbar spine fusion.

methodsA 1-year, single-centre, prospective study was performed on patients requiring a one- or two-level lumbar arthrodesis. Patients were randomized in two groups treated with either reusable or single-use device. A cost minimization analysis was performed using a micro-costing approach from a hospital perspective. Every step of the preparation process was timed and costed based on hourly wages of hospital employees, cleaning supplies and hospital waste costs.

resultsForty cases were evaluated. No significant difference in operation time was noted (reusable 176.1 ± 68.4 min; single use 190.4 ± 71.7 min; p = 0.569). Mean processing time for single-use devices was lower than for reusable devices (33 min vs. 176 min) representing a cost of 14€ versus 58€ (p < 0.05). Pre-/post-sterilization and spinal set recomposing steps were the most time-consuming in reusable device group. A total cost saving of 181€ per intervention resulted from the use and processing of the single-use device considering an additional sterilization cost of 137€ with the reusable device. The weight of the reusable device was 42 kg for three containers and 1.2 kg for the single-use device.

conclusionsOwing to the absence of re-sterilization, single-use devices in one- and two-level lumbar fusion allow significant money and time savings. They may also avoid delaying surgery in case of reusable device unavailability.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCosts and Cost AnalysisDisposable EquipmentDurable Medical EquipmentFemaleHospital CostsHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRandom AllocationSpinal FusionSterilizationCost minimization analysisLumbar arthrodesisMicro-costing analysisMinimally invasive spine surgerySingle-use medical devices

Identifiers

PMID31350650
OpenAlexW2966685315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.