Suppr超能文献

使用内窥镜或手术显微镜行前路颈椎间盘切除融合术的边际术中成本是多少?一项基于时间的作业成本分析。

What is the Marginal Intraoperative Cost of Using an Exoscope or Operative Microscope for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion? A Time-Driven Activity-Based Cost Analysis.

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

出版信息

World Neurosurg. 2024 Jan;181:e3-e10. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.11.069. Epub 2023 Nov 20.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Our primary objective was to compare the intraoperative costs of 3 different surgical visualization techniques for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Specifically, we used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) methodology to compare costs between ACDFs performed with operative microscopes (OM-ACDF), exoscopes (EX-ACDF), and loupes (loupes-ACDF).

METHODS

Total cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. Individual costs were obtained by direct observation, electronic medical records, and through querying multiple departments (business operations, sterile processing, plant operations, and pharmacy). Timestamps for all involved personnel and material resources were documented. We identified all instances of loupes-ACDF (n = 882), EX-ACDF (n = 26), and OM-ACDF (n = 52) performed at our institution. We performed multivariable linear regression analyses to compare costs between these modalities, accounting for patient-specific factors as well as number of levels fused, surgeon, and hospital site.

RESULTS

The average total intraoperative costs per loupes-ACDF, EX-ACDF, and OM-ACDF cases were $7081 +/- $2,942, $7951 +/- $3,488, and $6557 +/- $954, respectively. Regression analysis revealed no difference in intraoperative cost between loupes-ACDF and EX-ACDF (P = 0.717), loupes-ACDF and OM-ACDF (0.954), or OM-ACDF and EX-ACDF (0.217). On a more granular level, however, EX-ACDF was associated with increased cost of consumables, including drapes, compared to both OM-ACDF (β-coefficient: $369 +/- $121, P = 0.002) and loupes-ACDF (β-coefficient: $284 +/- $86, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although hospitals may be aware of the purchasing fees associated with microscopes and exoscopes, there is no clear documentation of how these technologies affect intraoperative cost. We demonstrate a novel use of TDABC for this purpose.

摘要

目的

我们的主要目标是比较三种不同的手术可视化技术在颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)中的术中成本。具体来说,我们使用时间驱动的作业成本法(TDABC)方法比较显微镜辅助颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(OM-ACDF)、手术显微镜(EX-ACDF)和手术放大镜(loupes-ACDF)的成本。

方法

总费用分为直接费用和间接费用。通过直接观察、电子病历和向多个部门(业务运营、无菌处理、工厂运营和药房)查询获得各个成本。记录所有涉及人员和资源的时间戳。我们确定了在我院进行的 loupes-ACDF(n=882)、EX-ACDF(n=26)和 OM-ACDF(n=52)的所有病例。我们进行了多变量线性回归分析,以比较这些方式之间的成本,同时考虑了患者特定因素以及融合的节段数量、外科医生和医院地点。

结果

每例 loupes-ACDF、EX-ACDF 和 OM-ACDF 的平均总术中成本分别为$7081 +/- $2942、$7951 +/- $3488 和$6557 +/- $954。回归分析显示 loupes-ACDF 和 EX-ACDF(P=0.717)、loupes-ACDF 和 OM-ACDF(0.954)或 OM-ACDF 和 EX-ACDF(0.217)之间的术中成本无差异。然而,在更精细的层面上,与 OM-ACDF(β系数:$369 +/- $121,P=0.002)和 loupes-ACDF(β系数:$284 +/- $86,P=0.001)相比,EX-ACDF 与消耗品成本的增加相关,包括手术巾。

结论

尽管医院可能了解显微镜和手术显微镜相关的采购费用,但对于这些技术如何影响术中成本,尚无明确记录。我们展示了一种使用 TDABC 达到此目的的新方法。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验