Comprehensive Costs Associated with Fiberoptic and Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes at a High Volume Teaching Hospital

dc.contributor.authorBorofsky, Michael S.
dc.contributor.authorDauw, Casey A.
dc.contributor.authorYork, Nadya E.
dc.contributor.authorHoovler, Christine
dc.contributor.authorLingeman, James E.
dc.contributor.departmentUrology, School of Medicineen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-12-07T15:15:03Z
dc.date.available2017-12-07T15:15:03Z
dc.date.issued2017-05
dc.description.abstractIntroduction Modern flexible ureteroscope ownership costs are considerable. Most prior estimates focus exclusively on repair costs, likely underestimating overall costs, including those of acquisition and reprocessing. Furthermore, to our knowledge no prior cost analyses focus on the latest generation digital flexible ureteroscope, which may differ due to unique purchase and repair prices. We sought to gain greater insight into the comprehensive costs associated with modern flexible ureteroscope use, particularly the difference between digital and fiberoptic models. Methods Data on use and repair of fiberoptic Storz Flex-X2 and digital Flex-Xc flexible ureteroscopes from 2011 to 2015 were reviewed. List prices and repair costs were obtained from Storz. Per case reprocessing costs were estimated, accounting for disposables, reagents and labor. Maintenance costs were estimated by combining cost of repairs and reprocessing. Analyses were performed at list pricing and standard discount rates. Global flexible ureteroscope costs were calculated to account for the cost of acquisition, repair and maintenance of a new scope during its first 100 uses. Results Global costs associated with digital flexible ureteroscope ownership were 1.3 to 1.4 times greater than fiberoptic on a per case basis ($1,008/$1,086 vs $715/$835). The majority of expenses went toward scope repairs (73% vs 71%), with instrument purchase (23% vs 24%) and reprocessing (4% vs 5%) being less costly. Repair rates were not significantly different between fiberoptic and digital devices (12.5 vs 11.5, p=0.757). Conclusions Expenditures associated with ownership of modern flexible ureteroscopes are considerable and driven primarily by the high cost of repairs. Digital instruments are more costly despite comparable rates of flexible ureteroscope damage.en_US
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.citationBorofsky, M. S., Dauw, C. A., York, N. E., Hoovler, C., & Lingeman, J. E. (2017). Comprehensive Costs Associated with Fiberoptic and Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes at a High Volume Teaching Hospital. Urology Practice, 4(3), 187-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urpr.2016.06.007en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/14734
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1016/j.urpr.2016.06.007en_US
dc.relation.journalUrology Practiceen_US
dc.rightsPublisher Policyen_US
dc.sourceAuthoren_US
dc.subjecturetoscopeen_US
dc.subjecturetoscopyen_US
dc.subjectcosts and cost analysisen_US
dc.titleComprehensive Costs Associated with Fiberoptic and Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes at a High Volume Teaching Hospitalen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Borofsky_2017_comprehensive.pdf
Size:
120.1 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: