Related Experiment Videos
Cost analysis of flexible ureterorenoscopy
J W Collins1, F X Keeley, A Timoney
1Bristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.
BJU International
|May 15, 2004
Summary
The costs of ancillary equipment for flexible ureterorenoscopy exceeded ureteroscope purchase and repair expenses. Disposable instrumentation represented a significant portion of these ancillary costs, impacting overall budget planning.
Area of Science:
- Urology
- Medical Device Technology
- Health Economics
Background:
- Flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) is a key urological procedure.
- Understanding the economic aspects of FURS is crucial for healthcare providers.
- The cost-effectiveness of FURS requires detailed analysis of all associated expenses.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the total costs associated with performing flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS).
- To analyze the breakdown of expenses, including the ureteroscope itself and ancillary equipment.
- To provide data for informed budget planning in urological procedures.
Main Methods:
- Prospective data collection for 100 flexible ureterorenoscopy cases.
- Utilized a specific flexible ureteroscope model (DUR8, Circon ACMI).
- Tracked indications, laser probe use, disposable instrumentation, and repair costs.
Main Results:
- Ancillary equipment costs (£28,727) surpassed ureteroscope purchase and maintenance costs (£23,400) over 100 cases.
- Disposable instrumentation accounted for the largest share of ancillary costs (£22,927).
- The ureteroscope required repairs after the 29th and 88th procedures.
Conclusions:
- Ancillary equipment costs, particularly disposables, are a major financial consideration in FURS.
- Future development of more durable ureteroscopes could reduce repair frequency and associated costs.
- Budgeting for FURS must prioritize the significant and ongoing costs of disposable supplies.