10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Relevance of Adopting a Hybrid Strategy Mixing Single-Use and Reusable Ureteroscopes for Stones Management: An Economic Study to Support the Best Strategy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Endoscopic procedures such as ureteroscopy (URS) have seen a recent increase in single-use devices. Despite all the advantages provided by disposable ureteroscopes (sURSs), their cost effectiveness remains questionable, leading most teams to use a hybrid strategy combining reusable (rURS) and disposable devices. Our study aimed to create an economic model that estimated the cut-off value of rURS procedures needed to support the profitability of a hybrid strategy (HS) for ureteroscopy. We used a budget impact analysis (BIA) model that estimated the financial impact of an HS compared to 100% sURS use. The model included hospital volume, sterilization costs and the private or public status of the institution. Although the hybrid strategy generally remains the best economic and clinical option, a predictive BIA model is recommended for the decision-making. We found that the minimal optimal proportion of rURS procedures in an HS was mainly impacted by the activity volume and overall number of sterilization procedures. Private and public institutions must consider these variables and models in order to adapt their HS and remain profitable.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Forecasting the Future of Urology Practice: A Comprehensive Review of the Recommendations by International and European Associations on Priority Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic

          Context The unprecedented health care scenario caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has revolutionized urology practice worldwide. Objective To review the recommendations by the international and European national urological associations/societies (UASs) on prioritization strategies for both oncological and nononcological procedures released during the current emergency scenario. Evidence acquisition Each UAS official website was searched between April 8 and 18, 2020, to retrieve any document, publication, or position paper on prioritization strategies regarding both diagnostic and therapeutic urological procedures, and any recommendations on the use of telemedicine and minimally invasive surgery. We collected detailed information on all urological procedures, stratified by disease, priority (higher vs lower), and patient setting (outpatient vs inpatient). Then, we critically discussed the implications of such recommendations for urology practice in both the forthcoming “adaptive” and the future “chronic” phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence synthesis Overall, we analyzed the recommendations from 13 UASs, of which four were international (American Urological Association, Confederation Americana de Urologia, European Association of Urology, and Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand) and nine national (from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, The Netherlands, and the UK). In the outpatient setting, the procedures that are likely to impact the future burden of urologists’ workload most are prostate biopsies and elective procedures for benign conditions. In the inpatient setting, the most relevant contributors to this burden are represented by elective surgeries for lower-risk prostate and renal cancers, nonobstructing stone disease, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Finally, some UASs recommended special precautions to perform minimally invasive surgery, while others outlined the potential role of telemedicine to optimize resources in the current and future scenarios. Conclusions The expected changes will put significant strain on urological units worldwide regarding the overall workload of urologists, internal logistics, inflow of surgical patients, and waiting lists. In light of these predictions, urologists should strive to leverage this emergency period to reshape their role in the future. Patient summary Overall, there was a large consensus among different urological associations/societies regarding the prioritization of most urological procedures, including those in the outpatient setting, urological emergencies, and many inpatient surgeries for both oncological and nononcological conditions. On the contrary, some differences were found regarding specific cancer surgeries (ie, radical cystectomy for higher-risk bladder cancer and nephrectomy for larger organ-confined renal masses), potentially due to different prioritization criteria and/or health care contexts. In the future, the outpatient procedures that are likely to impact the burden of urologists’ workload most are prostate biopsies and elective procedures for benign conditions. In the inpatient setting, the most relevant contributors to this burden are represented by elective surgeries for lower-risk prostate and renal cancers, nonobstructing stone disease, and benign prostatic hyperplasia.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Economic Implications of a Reusable Flexible Digital Ureteroscope: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

            Questions remain regarding the durability and longevity of flexible ureteroscopes. The objective of this study was to estimate the potential economic benefits of single use, flexible digital ureteroscopes compared to our recent experience with reusable flexible digital ureteroscopes using cost-benefit analysis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Budget impact analysis in economic evaluation: a proposal for a clearer definition.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                J Clin Med
                J Clin Med
                jcm
                Journal of Clinical Medicine
                MDPI
                2077-0383
                11 June 2021
                June 2021
                : 10
                : 12
                : 2593
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Health-Economic Evaluation Unit, CHU de Tours-Bretonneau, 2 Boulevard Tonnellé, 37044 Tours, France; ju.ramillon@ 123456gmail.com (J.R.); S.DUBNITSKIY-ROBIN@ 123456chu-tours.fr (S.D.-R.); E.RUSCH@ 123456chu-tours.fr (E.R.); solene.brunet-houdard@ 123456chu-tours.fr (S.B.-H.)
                [2 ]EA 7505—Education Ethics Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tours, 2 Boulevard Tonnellé, 37044 Tours, France
                [3 ]Inserm UMR1246 SPHERE, Universities of Nantes and Tours, CHU de Tours-Bretonneau, 2 Boulevard Tonnellé, 37044 Tours, France
                [4 ]Department of Urology, CHU de Tours-Bretonneau, 2 Boulevard Tonnellé, 37044 Tours, France; B.FAIVREDARCIER@ 123456chu-tours.fr (B.F.d.); F.BRUYERE@ 123456chu-tours.fr (F.B.); benjaminpradere@ 123456gmail.com (B.P.)
                [5 ]Pharmacy, CHU de Tours-Trousseau, Avenue de la République, 37170 Chambray-les-Tours, France; M.LEVERGER@ 123456chu-tours.fr
                [6 ]Biomedical Unit, CHU de Tours-Trousseau, Avenue de la République, 37170 Chambray-les-Tours, France; T.LEFOL@ 123456chu-tours.fr
                [7 ]PRES Centre Val de Loire, University of Tours, 60 Rue du Plat d’Étain, 37000 Tours, France
                [8 ]Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090 Wien, Austria
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7768-8558
                Article
                jcm-10-02593
                10.3390/jcm10122593
                8230737
                34208267
                8c7ecfab-e9f1-4d8a-ace1-114758311e90
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 11 May 2021
                : 03 June 2021
                Categories
                Article

                single-use ureteroscopes,urolithiasis,stone,hybrid strategy,cost analysis,cut-off values,disposable,medical devices

                Comments

                Comment on this article