Ritz J P, Stufler M, Buhr H J
Klinik für Allgemein-, Gefäss-und Thoraxchirurgie, Charité -Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin.
Chirurg. 2007 Jun;78(6):501-4, 506-10. doi: 10.1007/s00104-007-1345-1.
Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is now accepted as equally valid as the use of a standard access in some areas of surgery. It is not possible to decide whether this access is economically worthwhile and if so for whom without a full economic cost-benefit analysis, which must take account of the hospital's own characteristics in addition to the cost involved for surgery, staff, infrastructure and administration. In summary, the main economic advantage of MIS lies in the patient-related early postoperative results, while the main disadvantage is that the operative material costs are higher. At present, the payment made for each procedure performed under the DRG system includes 14-17% of the total cost for materials, regardless of the access route and of the technical sophistication of the operation. The actual material costs are greater by a factor of 2-50 for MIS than for a conventional procedure. The task of the hospital is thus to lower the costs for material and infrastructure; that of industry is to offer less expensive alternatives; and that of our politicians, to implement better remuneration of the material costs.
微创手术(MIS)目前在某些外科领域被认为与采用标准入路同样有效。如果没有全面的经济成本效益分析,就无法确定这种入路在经济上是否值得,以及对谁来说值得,这种分析除了要考虑手术、人员、基础设施和管理方面的成本外,还必须考虑医院自身的特点。总之,微创手术的主要经济优势在于与患者相关的术后早期结果,而主要劣势在于手术材料成本较高。目前,在疾病诊断相关分组(DRG)系统下,为每个手术支付的费用包括材料总成本的14 - 17%,无论入路方式和手术技术复杂程度如何。微创手术的实际材料成本比传统手术高2至50倍。因此,医院的任务是降低材料和基础设施成本;行业的任务是提供更便宜的替代品;而我们政治家的任务是实现对材料成本更好的补偿。