C Franceschi, F Tasso, V Simili, G Monteleone, F Martorelli, A De Angelis, E Cialdella, D Esposito, G Anzillotti, P Conte, B Di Matteo, E Kon, M Scardino
{"title":"Chloroprocaine vs. prilocaine for spinal anesthesia in outpatient knee arthroscopy: a prospective economic evaluation using activity-based costing.","authors":"C Franceschi, F Tasso, V Simili, G Monteleone, F Martorelli, A De Angelis, E Cialdella, D Esposito, G Anzillotti, P Conte, B Di Matteo, E Kon, M Scardino","doi":"10.26355/eurrev_202602_37690","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In orthopedic day-hospital interventions like knee arthroscopy, the choice of the short-acting local anesthetic to be used for spinal anesthesia may significantly impact both recovery times and hospital-related costs.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This prospective, two-arm cohort study included 70 adult patients undergoing an elective knee arthroscopy for meniscectomy who received either spinal chloroprocaine (40 mg, 1%) or prilocaine (40 mg, 2%). Cost analysis was performed using an activity-based costing approach, whereby resource utilization was multiplied by corresponding unit tariffs and summed across the following cost domains: operating room time, recovery room time, nurse care time, physician (anesthesiologist) care time, drug and device usage, and any unplanned overnight hospitalization. The primary outcome was the mean procedure cost per patient; secondary outcomes included perioperative time metrics and adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy subjects were recruited and assigned to one of the two groups, each consisting of 35 patients. The mean cost of the procedure per patient was €604.76 in the chloroprocaine group vs. €938.09 in the prilocaine group (difference = €333.33). Recovery room time and physician (anesthesiologist) care time were significantly shorter in the chloroprocaine group compared to the prilocaine group (45.63 vs. 104.00 minutes and 57.86 vs. 100.57 minutes, respectively, both p-values < 0.001). Urinary retention occurred in five patients in the prilocaine group, compared to none in the chloroprocaine group. One patient in the prilocaine group required overnight hospitalization.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of chloroprocaine for spinal anesthesia was associated with significantly shorter perioperative care times and lower hospital-related costs compared to prilocaine. Nonetheless, further high-quality, multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the pharmacoeconomic advantages of using chloroprocaine for cost-effective spinal anesthesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":12152,"journal":{"name":"European review for medical and pharmacological sciences","volume":"30 2","pages":"83-90"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European review for medical and pharmacological sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202602_37690","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: In orthopedic day-hospital interventions like knee arthroscopy, the choice of the short-acting local anesthetic to be used for spinal anesthesia may significantly impact both recovery times and hospital-related costs.
Materials and methods: This prospective, two-arm cohort study included 70 adult patients undergoing an elective knee arthroscopy for meniscectomy who received either spinal chloroprocaine (40 mg, 1%) or prilocaine (40 mg, 2%). Cost analysis was performed using an activity-based costing approach, whereby resource utilization was multiplied by corresponding unit tariffs and summed across the following cost domains: operating room time, recovery room time, nurse care time, physician (anesthesiologist) care time, drug and device usage, and any unplanned overnight hospitalization. The primary outcome was the mean procedure cost per patient; secondary outcomes included perioperative time metrics and adverse events.
Results: Seventy subjects were recruited and assigned to one of the two groups, each consisting of 35 patients. The mean cost of the procedure per patient was €604.76 in the chloroprocaine group vs. €938.09 in the prilocaine group (difference = €333.33). Recovery room time and physician (anesthesiologist) care time were significantly shorter in the chloroprocaine group compared to the prilocaine group (45.63 vs. 104.00 minutes and 57.86 vs. 100.57 minutes, respectively, both p-values < 0.001). Urinary retention occurred in five patients in the prilocaine group, compared to none in the chloroprocaine group. One patient in the prilocaine group required overnight hospitalization.
Conclusions: The use of chloroprocaine for spinal anesthesia was associated with significantly shorter perioperative care times and lower hospital-related costs compared to prilocaine. Nonetheless, further high-quality, multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the pharmacoeconomic advantages of using chloroprocaine for cost-effective spinal anesthesia.
目的:在膝关节镜等骨科日间医院干预中,选择短效局麻药用于脊髓麻醉可能会显著影响恢复时间和医院相关费用。材料和方法:这项前瞻性的两组队列研究包括70名接受选择性膝关节镜手术的半月板切除术的成年患者,他们接受氯普鲁卡因(40mg, 1%)或丙胺卡因(40mg, 2%)。使用基于作业的成本计算方法进行成本分析,将资源利用率乘以相应的单位费用,并在以下成本领域中进行汇总:手术室时间、恢复室时间、护士护理时间、医生(麻醉师)护理时间、药物和设备使用以及任何计划外的过夜住院。主要结局是每位患者的平均手术费用;次要结局包括围手术期指标和不良事件。结果:招募了70名受试者,并将其分为两组,每组35名患者。氯普鲁卡因组每位患者的平均手术费用为604.76欧元,而丙胺卡因组为938.09欧元(差异= 333.33欧元)。氯普鲁卡因组的恢复室时间和内科(麻醉师)护理时间明显短于丙罗卡因组(分别为45.63 vs 104.00分钟和57.86 vs 100.57分钟,p值均为0.001)。与氯普鲁卡因组无尿潴留相比,丙罗卡因组有5例患者出现尿潴留。丙胺组有1例患者需要住院过夜。结论:与丙胺卡因相比,氯普鲁卡因用于脊髓麻醉可显著缩短围手术期护理时间,降低住院相关费用。尽管如此,需要进一步的高质量、多中心随机对照试验来证实氯普鲁卡因用于成本效益高的脊髓麻醉的药物经济学优势。
期刊介绍:
European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, a fortnightly journal, acts as an information exchange tool on several aspects of medical and pharmacological sciences. It publishes reviews, original articles, and results from original research.
The purposes of the Journal are to encourage interdisciplinary discussions and to contribute to the advancement of medicine.
European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences includes:
-Editorials-
Reviews-
Original articles-
Trials-
Brief communications-
Case reports (only if of particular interest and accompanied by a short review)