A Survey of Morcellator Preference and Cost Comparison of the Lumenis VersaCut and Wolf Piranha Morcellators

dc.contributor.authorRivera, Marcelino E.
dc.contributor.authorLingeman, James E.
dc.contributor.authorHeinsimer, Kevin
dc.contributor.authorYork, Nadya E.
dc.contributor.authorKrambeck, Amy E.
dc.contributor.departmentUrology, School of Medicineen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-12-01T19:55:33Z
dc.date.available2017-12-01T19:55:33Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.description.abstractObjective To evaluate operating room (OR) costs associated with the 2 available morcellators in the United States in a matched cohort and to determine benign prostatic hyperplasia surgeon's morcellator preference. Materials and Methods Patients from 2013, the last year our institution exclusively used the VersaCut device, were matched 1:1 with the most recent patient cohort, utilizing the Wolf Piranha morcellator. Cost of morcellation including the expense of OR time and disposable instrument costs were calculated. A survey to the Endourological Society e-mail listserv was sent to determine morcellator preference. Results We identified 142 patients who underwent holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in 2013. When compared with the VersaCut group, morcellation efficiency (4.4 vs 7.0 g/min, P <.01) and expense of OR time ($1420.80 vs $992.21, P <.005) both favored the Piranha morcellator system even when the costs of disposable instruments were factored into the analysis ($1338.81 vs $1637.50, P <.05). A total of 126 urologists responded to the survey. Of these, 56 (44.5%) perform transurethral prostate enucleations, which included 48 (86%) holmium. More endourologists use the VersaCut (n = 33, 59%) than the Piranha (n = 24, 43%) morcellator. Qualities that impacted the preference of morcellator included the preferred device is safer, faster, easier to use, reusable, and less expensive. Conclusion We identified a significant improved efficiency and improved cost savings utilizing the Piranha morcellator even when controlling for disposable costs. Of the endourologists who responded to the survey, less than half perform transurethral enucleation. Morcellator preference is largely based on safety, efficiency, and ease of use, whereas cost and reusablility were of lesser importance.en_US
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.citationRivera, M. E., Lingeman, J. E., Heinsimer, K., York, N. E., & Krambeck, A. E. (2017). A Survey of Morcellator Preference and Cost Comparison of the Lumenis® VersaCut™ and Wolf Piranha Morcellators. Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.09.019en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/14708
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1016/j.urology.2017.09.019en_US
dc.relation.journalUrologyen_US
dc.rightsPublisher Policyen_US
dc.sourceAuthoren_US
dc.subjectmorcellationen_US
dc.subjectHoLEPen_US
dc.subjectcosten_US
dc.titleA Survey of Morcellator Preference and Cost Comparison of the Lumenis VersaCut and Wolf Piranha Morcellatorsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Rivera_2017_morcellator.pdf
Size:
617.69 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.99 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: