Grover A, Robbins J, Bendick P, Gibson M, Villalba M
Department of Surgery, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA.
Am Surg. 2001 Apr;67(4):297-301; discussion 301-2.
The economic advantages of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomies versus open tracheostomies in the operating room have been thoroughly evaluated. We are now reporting our comparison of the costs and charges of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomies with those of open bedside tracheostomies at our institution. The current literature comparing the two open techniques and the percutaneous method of placing tracheostomies was reviewed and the charges and costs for these procedures at our institution were compared. Patients were placed into one of three groups for analysis: open tracheostomies in the operating room (Group I), open tracheostomies in the intensive care unit (Group II), and percutaneous dilatational tracheostomies in the intensive care unit (Group III). Based on our own experience and a literature review it is evident that all three approaches to tracheostomies are safe. Economic analysis showed a savings of $180 in cost per procedure and a $658 savings in charges per procedure for the open method at the bedside when compared with the percutaneous method at the bedside. The professional fee for bronchoscopy was not included in this calculation; including this would lead to greater savings with the open method over the percutaneous method. Open tracheostomy in the operating room increased costs over the bedside procedure by $2194 and increased charges by $2871. For the 150 to 180 tracheostomies done each year at our institution utilization of the open technique at the bedside results in a cost savings of approximately $31,500 and a charge savings of $109,000 compared with the percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy. Both the open bedside and percutaneous dilatational methods are reasonable and safe options. However, the open bedside tracheostomy is a better utilization of resources and is more cost effective, and it is the procedure of choice at our institution.
经皮扩张气管切开术与手术室开放气管切开术的经济优势已得到充分评估。我们现报告在本机构中经皮扩张气管切开术与床边开放气管切开术的成本及收费比较情况。回顾了当前比较两种开放技术及经皮气管切开术方法的文献,并比较了本机构这些手术的收费及成本。患者被分为三组之一进行分析:手术室开放气管切开术(第一组)、重症监护病房开放气管切开术(第二组)和重症监护病房经皮扩张气管切开术(第三组)。基于我们自己的经验及文献回顾,很明显气管切开术的所有三种方法都是安全的。经济分析表明,与床边经皮方法相比,床边开放方法每次手术成本节省180美元,收费节省658美元。支气管镜检查的专业费用未包含在此计算中;若包含此项,开放方法比经皮方法节省更多。手术室开放气管切开术比床边手术成本增加2194美元,收费增加2871美元。在本机构,每年进行150至180例气管切开术,与经皮扩张气管切开术相比,床边采用开放技术可节省成本约31,500美元,收费节省109,000美元。床边开放和经皮扩张方法都是合理且安全的选择。然而,床边开放气管切开术资源利用更佳且更具成本效益,是我们机构的首选手术方式。