A cost-effectiveness evaluation of laparoscopic disposable versus nondisposable infraumbilical cannulas

Scott B. Ransom, S. Gene McNeeley, Chad White, Michael Peter Diamond

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study Objective. To compare the safety and cost-effectiveness of disposable and nondisposable infraumbilical laparoscopic cannulas. Design. Retrospective review of consecutive laparoscopic procedures performed from July 1, 1988, to June 30, 1994. Setting. A university-affiliated hospital. Patients. The 10,459 consecutive women who underwent laparoscopies. Interventions. A 10-mm disposable cannula was used in 529 laparoscopies and a nondisposable cannula in 9930, based on physician preference. Measurements and Main Results. The only intraabdominal injuries associated with insertion of disposable and nondisposable cannulas were bowel injuries in one and three patients, respectively. The injury rates for the instruments were 19 and 3/10,000 cases, respectively, but were not statistically different (P <0.05, Fisher's two-tail exact test). The hospital cost per disposable cannula in 1994 was $63.71; the cost per procedure with the nondisposable cannula was amortized and was less than $1.35, including maintenance. Conclusion. Disposable cannulas were not cost effective and were associated with a higher but not statistically significant complication rate. Therefore, the more expensive disposable cannulas are not recommended.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)25-28
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists
Volume4
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1996
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Laparoscopy
Wounds and Injuries
Costs and Cost Analysis
Cannula
Hospital Costs
Maintenance
Physicians
Safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

A cost-effectiveness evaluation of laparoscopic disposable versus nondisposable infraumbilical cannulas. / Ransom, Scott B.; McNeeley, S. Gene; White, Chad; Diamond, Michael Peter.

In: Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, Vol. 4, No. 1, 01.01.1996, p. 25-28.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1e8212b0d3df444e91d0c6852c54b361,
title = "A cost-effectiveness evaluation of laparoscopic disposable versus nondisposable infraumbilical cannulas",
abstract = "Study Objective. To compare the safety and cost-effectiveness of disposable and nondisposable infraumbilical laparoscopic cannulas. Design. Retrospective review of consecutive laparoscopic procedures performed from July 1, 1988, to June 30, 1994. Setting. A university-affiliated hospital. Patients. The 10,459 consecutive women who underwent laparoscopies. Interventions. A 10-mm disposable cannula was used in 529 laparoscopies and a nondisposable cannula in 9930, based on physician preference. Measurements and Main Results. The only intraabdominal injuries associated with insertion of disposable and nondisposable cannulas were bowel injuries in one and three patients, respectively. The injury rates for the instruments were 19 and 3/10,000 cases, respectively, but were not statistically different (P <0.05, Fisher's two-tail exact test). The hospital cost per disposable cannula in 1994 was $63.71; the cost per procedure with the nondisposable cannula was amortized and was less than $1.35, including maintenance. Conclusion. Disposable cannulas were not cost effective and were associated with a higher but not statistically significant complication rate. Therefore, the more expensive disposable cannulas are not recommended.",
author = "Ransom, {Scott B.} and McNeeley, {S. Gene} and Chad White and Diamond, {Michael Peter}",
year = "1996",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S1074-3804(96)80104-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "25--28",
journal = "Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology",
issn = "1553-4650",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A cost-effectiveness evaluation of laparoscopic disposable versus nondisposable infraumbilical cannulas

AU - Ransom, Scott B.

AU - McNeeley, S. Gene

AU - White, Chad

AU - Diamond, Michael Peter

PY - 1996/1/1

Y1 - 1996/1/1

N2 - Study Objective. To compare the safety and cost-effectiveness of disposable and nondisposable infraumbilical laparoscopic cannulas. Design. Retrospective review of consecutive laparoscopic procedures performed from July 1, 1988, to June 30, 1994. Setting. A university-affiliated hospital. Patients. The 10,459 consecutive women who underwent laparoscopies. Interventions. A 10-mm disposable cannula was used in 529 laparoscopies and a nondisposable cannula in 9930, based on physician preference. Measurements and Main Results. The only intraabdominal injuries associated with insertion of disposable and nondisposable cannulas were bowel injuries in one and three patients, respectively. The injury rates for the instruments were 19 and 3/10,000 cases, respectively, but were not statistically different (P <0.05, Fisher's two-tail exact test). The hospital cost per disposable cannula in 1994 was $63.71; the cost per procedure with the nondisposable cannula was amortized and was less than $1.35, including maintenance. Conclusion. Disposable cannulas were not cost effective and were associated with a higher but not statistically significant complication rate. Therefore, the more expensive disposable cannulas are not recommended.

AB - Study Objective. To compare the safety and cost-effectiveness of disposable and nondisposable infraumbilical laparoscopic cannulas. Design. Retrospective review of consecutive laparoscopic procedures performed from July 1, 1988, to June 30, 1994. Setting. A university-affiliated hospital. Patients. The 10,459 consecutive women who underwent laparoscopies. Interventions. A 10-mm disposable cannula was used in 529 laparoscopies and a nondisposable cannula in 9930, based on physician preference. Measurements and Main Results. The only intraabdominal injuries associated with insertion of disposable and nondisposable cannulas were bowel injuries in one and three patients, respectively. The injury rates for the instruments were 19 and 3/10,000 cases, respectively, but were not statistically different (P <0.05, Fisher's two-tail exact test). The hospital cost per disposable cannula in 1994 was $63.71; the cost per procedure with the nondisposable cannula was amortized and was less than $1.35, including maintenance. Conclusion. Disposable cannulas were not cost effective and were associated with a higher but not statistically significant complication rate. Therefore, the more expensive disposable cannulas are not recommended.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029906778&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029906778&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S1074-3804(96)80104-6

DO - 10.1016/S1074-3804(96)80104-6

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 25

EP - 28

JO - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

JF - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

SN - 1553-4650

IS - 1

ER -