Comprehensive Costs Associated with Fiberoptic and Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes at a High Volume Teaching Hospital

Michael S. Borofsky, Casey A. Dauw, Nadya E. York, Christine Hoovler, James E. Lingeman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction Modern flexible ureteroscope ownership costs are considerable. Most prior estimates focus exclusively on repair costs, likely underestimating overall costs, including those of acquisition and reprocessing. Furthermore, to our knowledge no prior cost analyses focus on the latest generation digital flexible ureteroscope, which may differ due to unique purchase and repair prices. We sought to gain greater insight into the comprehensive costs associated with modern flexible ureteroscope use, particularly the difference between digital and fiberoptic models. Methods Data on use and repair of fiberoptic Storz Flex-X2 and digital Flex-Xc flexible ureteroscopes from 2011 to 2015 were reviewed. List prices and repair costs were obtained from Storz. Per case reprocessing costs were estimated, accounting for disposables, reagents and labor. Maintenance costs were estimated by combining cost of repairs and reprocessing. Analyses were performed at list pricing and standard discount rates. Global flexible ureteroscope costs were calculated to account for the cost of acquisition, repair and maintenance of a new scope during its first 100 uses. Results Global costs associated with digital flexible ureteroscope ownership were 1.3 to 1.4 times greater than fiberoptic on a per case basis ($1,008/$1,086 vs $715/$835). The majority of expenses went toward scope repairs (73% vs 71%), with instrument purchase (23% vs 24%) and reprocessing (4% vs 5%) being less costly. Repair rates were not significantly different between fiberoptic and digital devices (12.5 vs 11.5, p=0.757). Conclusions Expenditures associated with ownership of modern flexible ureteroscopes are considerable and driven primarily by the high cost of repairs. Digital instruments are more costly despite comparable rates of flexible ureteroscope damage.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)187-192
Number of pages6
JournalUrology Practice
Volume4
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2017

Fingerprint

Ureteroscopes
High-Volume Hospitals
Teaching Hospitals
Costs and Cost Analysis
Ownership

Keywords

  • costs and cost analysis
  • instrumentation
  • ureteroscopes
  • ureteroscopy

Cite this

Comprehensive Costs Associated with Fiberoptic and Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes at a High Volume Teaching Hospital. / Borofsky, Michael S.; Dauw, Casey A.; York, Nadya E.; Hoovler, Christine; Lingeman, James E.

In: Urology Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, 01.05.2017, p. 187-192.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Borofsky, Michael S. ; Dauw, Casey A. ; York, Nadya E. ; Hoovler, Christine ; Lingeman, James E. / Comprehensive Costs Associated with Fiberoptic and Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes at a High Volume Teaching Hospital. In: Urology Practice. 2017 ; Vol. 4, No. 3. pp. 187-192.
@article{80557f79fcb14ba4839c0040d28223b1,
title = "Comprehensive Costs Associated with Fiberoptic and Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes at a High Volume Teaching Hospital",
abstract = "Introduction Modern flexible ureteroscope ownership costs are considerable. Most prior estimates focus exclusively on repair costs, likely underestimating overall costs, including those of acquisition and reprocessing. Furthermore, to our knowledge no prior cost analyses focus on the latest generation digital flexible ureteroscope, which may differ due to unique purchase and repair prices. We sought to gain greater insight into the comprehensive costs associated with modern flexible ureteroscope use, particularly the difference between digital and fiberoptic models. Methods Data on use and repair of fiberoptic Storz Flex-X2 and digital Flex-Xc flexible ureteroscopes from 2011 to 2015 were reviewed. List prices and repair costs were obtained from Storz. Per case reprocessing costs were estimated, accounting for disposables, reagents and labor. Maintenance costs were estimated by combining cost of repairs and reprocessing. Analyses were performed at list pricing and standard discount rates. Global flexible ureteroscope costs were calculated to account for the cost of acquisition, repair and maintenance of a new scope during its first 100 uses. Results Global costs associated with digital flexible ureteroscope ownership were 1.3 to 1.4 times greater than fiberoptic on a per case basis ($1,008/$1,086 vs $715/$835). The majority of expenses went toward scope repairs (73{\%} vs 71{\%}), with instrument purchase (23{\%} vs 24{\%}) and reprocessing (4{\%} vs 5{\%}) being less costly. Repair rates were not significantly different between fiberoptic and digital devices (12.5 vs 11.5, p=0.757). Conclusions Expenditures associated with ownership of modern flexible ureteroscopes are considerable and driven primarily by the high cost of repairs. Digital instruments are more costly despite comparable rates of flexible ureteroscope damage.",
keywords = "costs and cost analysis, instrumentation, ureteroscopes, ureteroscopy",
author = "Borofsky, {Michael S.} and Dauw, {Casey A.} and York, {Nadya E.} and Christine Hoovler and Lingeman, {James E.}",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.urpr.2016.06.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "187--192",
journal = "Urology Practice",
issn = "2352-0779",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comprehensive Costs Associated with Fiberoptic and Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes at a High Volume Teaching Hospital

AU - Borofsky, Michael S.

AU - Dauw, Casey A.

AU - York, Nadya E.

AU - Hoovler, Christine

AU - Lingeman, James E.

PY - 2017/5/1

Y1 - 2017/5/1

N2 - Introduction Modern flexible ureteroscope ownership costs are considerable. Most prior estimates focus exclusively on repair costs, likely underestimating overall costs, including those of acquisition and reprocessing. Furthermore, to our knowledge no prior cost analyses focus on the latest generation digital flexible ureteroscope, which may differ due to unique purchase and repair prices. We sought to gain greater insight into the comprehensive costs associated with modern flexible ureteroscope use, particularly the difference between digital and fiberoptic models. Methods Data on use and repair of fiberoptic Storz Flex-X2 and digital Flex-Xc flexible ureteroscopes from 2011 to 2015 were reviewed. List prices and repair costs were obtained from Storz. Per case reprocessing costs were estimated, accounting for disposables, reagents and labor. Maintenance costs were estimated by combining cost of repairs and reprocessing. Analyses were performed at list pricing and standard discount rates. Global flexible ureteroscope costs were calculated to account for the cost of acquisition, repair and maintenance of a new scope during its first 100 uses. Results Global costs associated with digital flexible ureteroscope ownership were 1.3 to 1.4 times greater than fiberoptic on a per case basis ($1,008/$1,086 vs $715/$835). The majority of expenses went toward scope repairs (73% vs 71%), with instrument purchase (23% vs 24%) and reprocessing (4% vs 5%) being less costly. Repair rates were not significantly different between fiberoptic and digital devices (12.5 vs 11.5, p=0.757). Conclusions Expenditures associated with ownership of modern flexible ureteroscopes are considerable and driven primarily by the high cost of repairs. Digital instruments are more costly despite comparable rates of flexible ureteroscope damage.

AB - Introduction Modern flexible ureteroscope ownership costs are considerable. Most prior estimates focus exclusively on repair costs, likely underestimating overall costs, including those of acquisition and reprocessing. Furthermore, to our knowledge no prior cost analyses focus on the latest generation digital flexible ureteroscope, which may differ due to unique purchase and repair prices. We sought to gain greater insight into the comprehensive costs associated with modern flexible ureteroscope use, particularly the difference between digital and fiberoptic models. Methods Data on use and repair of fiberoptic Storz Flex-X2 and digital Flex-Xc flexible ureteroscopes from 2011 to 2015 were reviewed. List prices and repair costs were obtained from Storz. Per case reprocessing costs were estimated, accounting for disposables, reagents and labor. Maintenance costs were estimated by combining cost of repairs and reprocessing. Analyses were performed at list pricing and standard discount rates. Global flexible ureteroscope costs were calculated to account for the cost of acquisition, repair and maintenance of a new scope during its first 100 uses. Results Global costs associated with digital flexible ureteroscope ownership were 1.3 to 1.4 times greater than fiberoptic on a per case basis ($1,008/$1,086 vs $715/$835). The majority of expenses went toward scope repairs (73% vs 71%), with instrument purchase (23% vs 24%) and reprocessing (4% vs 5%) being less costly. Repair rates were not significantly different between fiberoptic and digital devices (12.5 vs 11.5, p=0.757). Conclusions Expenditures associated with ownership of modern flexible ureteroscopes are considerable and driven primarily by the high cost of repairs. Digital instruments are more costly despite comparable rates of flexible ureteroscope damage.

KW - costs and cost analysis

KW - instrumentation

KW - ureteroscopes

KW - ureteroscopy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85016425250&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85016425250&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urpr.2016.06.007

DO - 10.1016/j.urpr.2016.06.007

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 187

EP - 192

JO - Urology Practice

JF - Urology Practice

SN - 2352-0779

IS - 3

ER -