Cost-effective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
BACKGROUND
There is wide variation in costs, both theatre and ward, for the same operation performed in different hospitals. The aim of this study was to compare the true costs for a large number of consecutive laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) cases using re-usable equipment with those from an adjacent trust in which the policy was to use disposable LC equipment.


METHODS
Data were collected prospectively between January 2001 and December 2007 inclusive for all consecutive patients undergoing LC by two upper gastrointestinal (UGI) consultants at the Royal Berkshire Hospital. Data were collected for all the instruments used, in particular any additional disposable instruments used at surgeons' preference. Sterilisation costs were calculated for all re-usable instruments. Costs were also obtained from an adjacent NHS trust which adopted a policy of using disposable ports and clip applicators. Disposable equipment such as drapes, insufflation tubing, and camera sheath were not considered as additional costs, since they are common to both trusts and not available in a re-usable form.


RESULTS
Over 7 years, a total of 1803 LCs were performed consecutively by two UGI consultants at the Royal Berkshire Hospital. The grand total for 1803 LC cases for the re-usable group, including initial purchasing, was pound89,844.41 (an average of pound49.83 per LC case). The grand total for the disposable group, including sterilisation costs, was pound574,706.25 (an average of pound318.75 per LC case). Thus the saving for the trust using re-usable trocars, ports and clip applicators was pound268.92 per case, pound69,265.98 per annum and pound484,861.84 over 7 years.


CONCLUSIONS
This study has demonstrated that considerable savings occur with a policy of minimal use of disposable equipment for LC. Using a disposable set, the instrument costs per procedure is 6.4 times greater than the cost of using re-usable LC sets. It behoves surgeons to be cost-effective and to reduce unnecessary expenditure and wastage. There is no evidence to support use of once-only laparoscopic instruments on grounds of patient safety, ease of use or transmission of infection. If the savings identified in this study of two surgeons' work (savings of pound484,861.84 in a 7-year period) was extended not only across the hospital but across the NHS, large savings could be made for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Even greater savings would accrue if the results were extrapolated to cover all laparoscopic surgery of whatever discipline.
Slater
M
M
Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, UK.
Booth
M I
MI
Dehn
T C B
TC
D017081:Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic / Q000191:economics* / Q000295:instrumentation; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D004209:Disposable Equipment / Q000191:economics; D017743:Equipment Reuse / Q000191:economics; D006801:Humans; D020706:Laparoscopes / Q000191:economics* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011446:Prospective Studies; D013242:Sterilization / Q000191:economics