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

Kazumi Taguchi, Manint Usawachintachit, David T. Tzou, Benjamin A. Sherer, Ian Metzler, Dylan Isaacson, Marshall L. Stoller, Thomas Chi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

25 Scopus citations

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)267-273
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Endourology
Volume32
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2018
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • micro-costing, disposable flexible ureteroscope, reusable flexible ureteroscope

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Micro-Costing Analysis Demonstrates Comparable Costs for LithoVue Compared to Reusable Flexible Fiberoptic Ureteroscopes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this