IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v7y2017i1d10.1186_s13561-017-0153-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative analysis of a disposable and a reusable pedicle screw instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis: integrating HTA and MCDA

Author

Listed:
  • Claudia Ottardi

    (Politecnico di Milano)

  • Alessio Damonti

    (LIUC-Università, Cattaneo)

  • Emanuele Porazzi

    (LIUC-Università, Cattaneo)

  • Emanuela Foglia

    (LIUC-Università, Cattaneo)

  • Lucrezia Ferrario

    (LIUC-Università, Cattaneo)

  • Tomaso Villa

    (Politecnico di Milano
    IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi)

  • Enrico Aimar

    (IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi)

  • Marco Brayda-Bruno

    (IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi)

  • Fabio Galbusera

    (IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi)

Abstract

Objective Lumbar arthrodesis is a common surgical technique that consists of the fixation of one or more motion segments with pedicle screws and rods. However, spinal surgery using these techniques is expensive and has a significant impact on the budgets of hospitals and Healthcare Systems. While reusable and disposable instruments for laparoscopic interventions have been studied in literature, no specific information exists regarding instrument kits for lumbar arthrodesis. The aim of the present study was to perform a complete health technology assessment comparing a disposable instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis (innovative device) with the standard reusable instrument. Methods A prospective and observational study was implemented, by means of investigation of administrative records of patients undergoing a lumbar arthrodesis surgical procedure. The evaluation was conducted in 2013, over a 12- month time horizon, considering all the procedures carried out using the two technologies. A complete health technology assessment and a multi-criteria decision analysis approach were implemented in order to compare the two alternative technologies. Economic impact (with the implementation of an activity based costing approach), social, ethical, organisational, and technology-related aspects were taken into account. Results Although the cost analysis produced similar results in the comparison of the two technologies (total cost equal to € 4,279.1 and € 4,242.6 for reusable instrument kit and the disposable one respectively), a significant difference between the two instrument kits was noted, in particular concerning the organisational impact and the patient safety. Conclusions The replacement of a reusable instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis, with a disposable one, could improve the management of this kind of devices in hospital settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudia Ottardi & Alessio Damonti & Emanuele Porazzi & Emanuela Foglia & Lucrezia Ferrario & Tomaso Villa & Enrico Aimar & Marco Brayda-Bruno & Fabio Galbusera, 2017. "A comparative analysis of a disposable and a reusable pedicle screw instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis: integrating HTA and MCDA," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:7:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-017-0153-7
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-017-0153-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-017-0153-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-017-0153-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:7:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-017-0153-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.