Disposable sheaths use versus instruments reprocessing for nasopharyngolaryngoscopy in ENT-clinic: a cost-minimization analysis.

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
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.

耳鼻喉门诊鼻咽喉镜使用一次性护套与器械再处理:成本最小化分析。
背景:鼻咽喉镜下再处理通常是次优的,并且经常报道违反再处理协议。一次性使用护套有助于减少内窥镜污染。这项研究的目的是比较一次性器械再处理和一次性护套替代品的相关成本。研究设计和方法:根据《综合卫生经济评估报告标准》,采用微观成本法,对光纤鼻咽喉镜检查器械的再加工与一次性护套的使用进行成本最小化分析,数据来自教学医院,成本为欧元,参照2022年。结果:在基本情况下,使用一次性护套比使用清洁和消毒程序少花费2600欧元。对直接医疗费用(包括人员、设备和业务费用以及消耗品)的分析显示,清洁和消毒替代方案的人员费用较高。敏感性分析进一步支持了节约成本结果的稳健性,一次性护套成本和灭菌包的差异对两种替代方案之间的成本差异有显著影响。结论:基于研究结果,本经济分析表明,使用一次性护套覆盖鼻咽喉镜是一种适当的成本节约策略。需要进行更大规模的进一步研究来证实这些令人鼓舞的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annali di igiene : medicina preventiva e di comunita
Annali di igiene : medicina preventiva e di comunita HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
69
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信