Mario Cesare Nurchis, Maria Michela Gianino, Marcello Di Pumpo, Vittorio De Vita, Antonio Moffa, Lucrezia Giorgi, Lorenzo Sabatino, Lorenzo Sommella, Manuele Casale, Gianfranco Damiani
{"title":"Disposable sheaths use versus instruments reprocessing for nasopharyngolaryngoscopy in ENT-clinic: a cost-minimization analysis.","authors":"Mario Cesare Nurchis, Maria Michela Gianino, Marcello Di Pumpo, Vittorio De Vita, Antonio Moffa, Lucrezia Giorgi, Lorenzo Sabatino, Lorenzo Sommella, Manuele Casale, Gianfranco Damiani","doi":"10.7416/ai.2025.2692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nasopharyngolaryngoscopes reprocessing is often suboptimal and breaches in reprocessing protocols are commonly reported. Single-use sheaths help in reducing endoscope contamination. The aim of the study is to compare costs related to disposable instruments reprocessing and the single-use sheaths alternative.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>A cost-minimization analysis to compare fiberoptic nasopharyngolaryngoscopy instruments reprocessing with disposable sheaths use was performed through the micro-costing approach with data from teaching hospital and costs in euros referred to 2022, following the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base-case scenario, using disposable sheaths costs € 2,600 less than using cleaning and sterilization procedures. The analysis of direct medical costs, which included personnel, equipment and operating costs, and consumables, revealed higher costs related to personnel for the cleaning and sterilization alternative. Sensitivity analysis further supported the robustness of the cost-saving findings, with variations in disposable sheaths cost and sterilization kits demonstrating significant impacts on the cost difference between the two alternatives.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on the study findings, this economic analysis shows that using disposable sheaths covering nasopharyngolaryngoscopes is an appropriate cost-saving strategy. Further studies on a larger scale are needed to confirm these encouraging results.</p>","PeriodicalId":7999,"journal":{"name":"Annali di igiene : medicina preventiva e di comunita","volume":" ","pages":"610-617"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annali di igiene : medicina preventiva e di comunita","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7416/ai.2025.2692","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Nasopharyngolaryngoscopes reprocessing is often suboptimal and breaches in reprocessing protocols are commonly reported. Single-use sheaths help in reducing endoscope contamination. The aim of the study is to compare costs related to disposable instruments reprocessing and the single-use sheaths alternative.
Research design and methods: A cost-minimization analysis to compare fiberoptic nasopharyngolaryngoscopy instruments reprocessing with disposable sheaths use was performed through the micro-costing approach with data from teaching hospital and costs in euros referred to 2022, following the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.
Results: In the base-case scenario, using disposable sheaths costs € 2,600 less than using cleaning and sterilization procedures. The analysis of direct medical costs, which included personnel, equipment and operating costs, and consumables, revealed higher costs related to personnel for the cleaning and sterilization alternative. Sensitivity analysis further supported the robustness of the cost-saving findings, with variations in disposable sheaths cost and sterilization kits demonstrating significant impacts on the cost difference between the two alternatives.
Conclusions: Based on the study findings, this economic analysis shows that using disposable sheaths covering nasopharyngolaryngoscopes is an appropriate cost-saving strategy. Further studies on a larger scale are needed to confirm these encouraging results.