Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Division of Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023 Oct;169(4):830-836. doi: 10.1002/ohn.360. Epub 2023 May 9.
Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of benign thyroid nodules has gained traction for its therapeutic effectiveness, thyroid function preservation, and minimally invasive nature. While a growing body of evidence reports positive outcomes from thyroid RFA, financial comparisons between both procedures remain limited. This analysis aims to more accurately measure the direct cost of thyroid RFA in comparison to thyroid lobectomy.
Bottom-up financial cost analysis.
Tertiary endocrine head and neck surgery center.
Time-driven activity-based costing was utilized to obtain unit-based cost estimates. The care cycles for thyroid lobectomy and RFA were defined, and process maps were developed comprising all personnel and work in the care cycle. Time estimates were calculated for all personnel involved, and public government data were used to obtain capacity cost rates for each component of the care cycle. Consumable supply and overhead costs were obtained for both procedures, and overall costs were compared.
For thyroid lobectomy, total personnel costs were $1087.97, consumable supplies were $942.68, and overhead costs $17,199.10. For thyroid nodule RFA performed in an office setting, the total personnel cost calculated was $379.90, consumable supplies $1315.28, and overhead $7031.20. Overall, the total cost for thyroid lobectomy was $19,229.75 compared to $8726.38 for RFA.
In-office thyroid nodule RFA is associated with lower direct costs than thyroid lobectomy, and overhead is the greatest cost driver for both procedures. If clinical and patient-centered outcomes are comparable, then RFA may provide higher value for appropriately selected patients.
射频消融(RFA)治疗良性甲状腺结节因其疗效确切、甲状腺功能保留和微创等优点而受到关注。尽管越来越多的证据表明甲状腺 RFA 有良好的效果,但这两种手术的财务比较仍然有限。本分析旨在更准确地衡量甲状腺 RFA 与甲状腺叶切除术的直接成本。
自下而上的财务成本分析。
三级内分泌头颈外科中心。
采用基于时间的作业成本法获得单位成本估算。定义了甲状腺叶切除术和 RFA 的护理周期,并开发了包含护理周期中所有人员和工作的流程图。计算了所有相关人员的时间估算,并使用公共政府数据获得了护理周期各组成部分的产能成本率。获取了两种手术的耗材供应和间接成本,并进行了总体成本比较。
对于甲状腺叶切除术,总人员成本为 1087.97 美元,耗材成本为 942.68 美元,间接成本为 17199.10 美元。对于在办公室环境中进行的甲状腺结节 RFA,计算得出的总人员成本为 379.90 美元,耗材成本为 1315.28 美元,间接成本为 7031.20 美元。总的来说,甲状腺叶切除术的总成本为 19229.75 美元,而 RFA 的总成本为 8726.38 美元。
与甲状腺叶切除术相比,办公室环境下的甲状腺结节 RFA 具有较低的直接成本,间接成本是两种手术的最大成本驱动因素。如果临床和以患者为中心的结果相当,那么 RFA 可能为选择合适的患者提供更高的价值。