Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

UCSF

UC San Francisco Previously Published Works bannerUCSF

Micro-Costing Analysis Demonstrates Comparable Costs for LithoVue Compared to Reusable Flexible Fiberoptic Ureteroscopes.

  • Author(s): Taguchi, Kazumi
  • Usawachintachit, Manint
  • Tzou, David T
  • Sherer, Benjamin A
  • Metzler, Ian
  • Isaacson, Dylan
  • Stoller, Marshall L
  • Chi, Thomas
  • et al.
Abstract

INTRODUCTION:Reusable ureteroscope durability and need for repair are significant sources of expense and inefficiency for patients and urologists. Utilization of LithoVue™, a disposable flexible digital ureteroscope, may address some of these concerns. To identify its economic impact on clinical care, we performed a micro-cost comparison between flexible reusable fiberoptic ureteroscopes (URF-P6™) and LithoVue. PATIENTS AND METHODS:For this prospective, single-center micro-costing study, all consecutive ureteroscopies performed during 1 week each in July and August 2016 utilized either URF-P6 or LithoVue ureteroscopes respectively. Workflow data were collected, including intraoperative events, postoperative reprocessing cycle timing, consumables usage, and ureteroscope cost data. RESULTS:Intraoperative data analysis showed mean total operating room time for URF-P6 and LithoVue cases were 93.4 ± 32.3 and 73.6 ± 17.4 minutes, respectively (p = 0.093). Mean cost of operating room usage per case was calculated at $1618.72 ± 441.39 for URF-P6 and $1348.64 ± 237.40 for LithoVue based on institutional cost rates exclusive of disposables. Postoperative data analysis revealed costs of $107.27 for labor and consumables during reprocessing for URF-P6 cases. The costs of ureteroscope repair and capital acquisition for each URF-P6 case were $957.71 and $116.02, respectively. The total ureteroscope cost per case for URF-P6 and LithoVue were $2799.72 and $2852.29, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Micro-cost analysis revealed that the cost of LithoVue acquisition is higher per case compared to reusable fiberoptic ureteroscopes, but savings are realized in labor, consumables, and repair. When accounting for these factors, the total cost per case utilizing these two ureteroscopes were comparable.

Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC's open access policies. Let us know how this access is important for you.

Main Content
Current View