Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T22:20:54.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-comparison study of reusable and disposable rhinolaryngoscopes in a large English teaching hospital

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2022

O Morgan ,
M Elsayed Open the ORCID record for M Elsayed [Opens in a new window] ,
Y Ramakrishnan ,
J McGlashan ,
D Whynes  and
R McCahon Open the ORCID record for R McCahon [Opens in a new window]
O Morgan
Affiliation:
Anaesthesia, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
M Elsayed
Affiliation:
ENT, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
Y Ramakrishnan
Affiliation:
ENT, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
J McGlashan
Affiliation:
ENT, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
D Whynes
Affiliation:
School of Economics, University of Nottingham, UK
R McCahon*
Affiliation:
Anaesthesia, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Robert McCahon, Department of Anaesthesia, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen's Medical Centre campus, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK E-mail: rob.mccahon@nottingham.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to compare the cost per use of video-rhinolaryngoscopy using reusable and disposable devices in a tertiary referral centre.

Methods

A cost-comparison study was performed that utilised retrospective cost data and prospective utilisation data to compare the total costs of using reusable video-rhinolaryngoscopes versus a single-use alternative.

Results

It was estimated that 4776 and 1821 procedures were performed annually with reusable and disposable video-rhinolaryngoscopes, respectively. The cost per use was £66.61 for reusable devices versus £150.00 for disposable devices. The break-even point (i.e. when cost per use was equal, occurred at 1374 procedures per year). Thereafter, it was cheaper to use reusable devices.

Conclusion

Disposable rhinolaryngoscopes may present a cheaper solution to services with low rates of rhinolaryngoscope utilisation. However, for larger services considering replacement of their reusable rhinolaryngoscopes with disposable units, it is likely that the recurring costs will be prohibitive in the medium to long term.

Keywords

Cost ComparisonOtolaryngologyCostCost Analysis
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 137 , Issue 5 , May 2023 , pp. 541 - 545
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr R McCahon takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Mistry, R, Russell, RV, Walker, N, Ofo, E. The single-use rhinolaryngoscope: an evaluation and cost comparison. J Laryngol Otol 2020;134:790–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mouritsen, JM, Ehlers, L, Kovaleva, J, Ahmad, I, El-Boghdadly, K. A systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis of reusable vs. single-use flexible bronchoscopes. Anaesthesia 2020;75:529–40Google ScholarPubMed
Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S, Carswell, C, Moher, D, Greenberg, D et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health 2013;16:e1–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Châteauvieux, C, Farah, L, Guérot, E, Wermert, D, Pineau, J, Prognon, P et al. Single-use flexible bronchoscopes compared with reusable bronchoscopes: positive organizational impact but a costly solution. J Eval Clin Pract 2018;24:528–35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, DC, Dagaonkar, RS, Yeow, C, Peters, AT, Tan, SK, Tai, DY et al. Experience with the use of single-use disposable bronchoscope in the ICU in a tertiary referral center of Singapore. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol 2017;24:136–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditommaso, S, Giacomuzzi, M, Cipriani, R, Zaccaria, T, Cavallo, R, Boggio, V et al. Using microbiological sampling to evaluate the efficacy of nasofibroscope disinfection: the Tristel Trio wipes system in Ear–Nose–Throat (ENT) endoscopy. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16:4583CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ofstead, CL, Doyle, EM, Eiland, JE, Amelang, MR, Wetzler, HP, England, DM et al. Practical toolkit for monitoring endoscope reprocessing effectiveness: identification of viable bacteria on gastroscopes, colonoscopes, and bronchoscopes. Am J Infect Control 2016;44:815–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kovaleva, J, Peters, FT, van der Mei, HC, Degener, JE. Transmission of infection by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Clin Microbiol Rev 2013;26:231–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ofstead, CL, Quick, MR, Wetzler, HP, Eiland, JE, Heymann, OL, Sonetti, DA et al. Effectiveness of reprocessing for flexible bronchoscopes and endobronchial ultrasound bronchoscopes. Chest 2018;154:1024–34Google ScholarPubMed
ENT UK. Recommendations for the decontamination of endoscopes for Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery. In: https://www.entuk.org/new-guidelines-decontamination-flexible-endoscopes-and-rigid-endoscopes-2017 [15 December 2020]Google Scholar
NHS Digital. Hospital outpatient activity, 2018-19: Main procedure or intervention. In: https://files.digital.nhs.uk/F8/7CFD26/hosp-epis-stat-outp-main-proc-2018-19-tab.xlsx [28 September 2020]Google Scholar