ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2026
Cost Minimization and Cost Comparison of the Use of Conventional Double Lumen Tube versus Single-Use VivaSight-Double Lumen Tube in Thoracic Surgery: The Pascale Institute Experience.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: One lung ventilation (OLV) is essential in thoracic surgery to isolate and ventilate a single lung, ensuring optimal surgical exposure and patient safety. Precise placement of a double lumen tube (DLT) is critical and conventionally confirmed via reusable bronchoscopy. Patients and Methods: We evaluated the economic and organisational impact of introducing VivaSightDLT-an endobronchial tube with an integrated camera-at Fondazione G. Pascale (Naples). Data from 50 patients were reviewed to compare device efficacy and positioning accuracy. Cost data from the Institute's management control informed a cost minimization analysis (CMA) and cost comparison analysis (CCA), projecting financial outcomes over 1, 3, and 5 years, based on an annual thoracic surgery volume of 400 cases (328 eligible for VivaSightDLT). Results: Although the per unit cost of VivaSightDLT exceeds that of the conventional DLT, mean savings per procedure were €86.36. When additional intraoperative bronchoscopic checks were required, savings increased to €193.89 per case. Net savings of €16,728.54 at 1 year, €50,185.62 at 3 years, and €83,642.70 at 5 years (15% reduction in direct variable costs) were projected. Full replacement of conventional DLTs would yield a 41% reduction in direct variable costs (€33,457.08, €100,371.25, and €167,285.41 over 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively). VivaSightDLT also reduced operative times by 14-25 minutes (19.5 min IC95%: 14-25), enhancing operating room turnover. Conclusion: The integration of VivaSight DLT at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Fondazione G. Pascale, demonstrates superior cost-effectiveness and procedural organisational efficiency compared to conventional DLTs. By eliminating routine reusable bronchoscopy and reducing procedure duration, VivaSight DLT represents an optimal strategy for OLV in thoracic surgery.
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.