A device category economic model of electrosurgery technologies across procedure types: a U.S. hospital budget impact analysis

References

• Meeuwsen FC, Guedon ACP, Arkenbout EA, et al. The art of electrosurgery: trainees and experts. Surg Innov. 2017;24(4):373–378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ethicon Inc. Ethicon Product Catalog. 2020 [cited 2021 Apr 15]. Available from: https://www.jnjmedicaldevices.com/sites/default/files/user_uploaded_assets/pdf_assets/2020-09/Ethicon%20Product%20Catalog%20035213-200527.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Liodaki E, Stang FH, Lohmeyer JA, et al. Noncontact electrosurgical grounding–a useful and safe tool in the initial surgical management of thermal injuries. Burns. 2013;39(1):142–145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Keeffe K, Fuchs K. Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy with bipolar coagulation cutting forceps (Enseal® Trio Device) versus suture technique vaginally: a comparative analysis. J Gynecol Surg. 2013;29(3):131–134.
   Google Scholar
• Toishi M, Yoshida K, Agatsuma H, et al. Usefulness of vessel-sealing devices for </=7 mm diameter vessels: a randomized controlled trial for human thoracoscopic lobectomy in primary lung cancer. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;19(3):448–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mushaya CD, Caleo PJ, Bartlett L, et al. Harmonic scalpel compared with conventional excisional haemorrhoidectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Tech Coloproctol. 2014;18(11):1009–1016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koga H, Suzuki K, Nishimura K, et al. Comparison of the value of tissue-sealing devices for thoracoscopic pulmonary lobectomy in small children: a first report. Pediatr Surg Int. 2014;30(9):937–940.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badawy A, Seo S, Toda R, et al. Evaluation of a new energy device for parenchymal transection in laparoscopic liver resection. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2018;11(2):123–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubner M, Demartines N, Muller S, et al. Prospective randomized study of monopolar scissors, bipolar vessel sealer and ultrasonic shears in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2008;95(9):1098–1104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lei H, Xu D, Shi X, et al. Ultrasonic dissection versus conventional dissection for pancreatic surgery: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016:6195426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen XL, Chen XZ, Lu ZH, et al. Comparison of ultrasonic scalpel versus conventional techniques in open gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e103330.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun ZC, Xu WG, Xiao XM, et al. Ultrasonic dissection versus conventional electrocautery during gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(4):527–533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokes ME, Ye X, Shah M, et al. Impact of bleeding-related complications and/or blood product transfusions on hospital costs in inpatient surgical patients. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei D, Roy S, Goldstein L, et al. Economic burden of major complications in patients undergoing lower anterior resection surgery: a real-world database study. Value in Health. 2017;20(5):A184–A184.
   Google Scholar
• Bakkar S, Papavramidis TS, Aljarrah Q, et al. Energy-based devices in thyroid surgery-an overview. Gland Surg. 2020;9(Suppl 1):S14–S17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrone R, Gambardella C, Romano RM, et al. The impact of the ultrasonic, bipolar and integrated energy devices in the adrenal gland surgery: literature review and our experience. BMC Surg. 2019;18(Suppl 1):123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiber LJ, Ginn DN, Jan A, et al. Comparison of industry-leading energy devices for use in gynecologic laparoscopy: articulating ENSEAL versus LigaSure energy devices. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25(3):467–473 e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng H, Clymer JW, Qadeer RA, et al. Procedure costs associated with the use of Harmonic devices compared to conventional techniques in various surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;10:399–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsamis D, Natoudi M, Arapaki A, et al. Using ligasure or harmonic Ace(R) in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies? A prospective randomized study. Obes Surg. 2015;25(8):1454–1457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy KK, Gc N, Singhal S, et al. Impact of energy devices on the post-operative systemic immune response in women undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease of the uterus. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2018;19(1):1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu JS, Luttmann DR, Meininger TA, et al. Production and systemic absorption of toxic byproducts of tissue combustion during laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 1997;11(11):1075–1079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mowbray NG, Ansell J, Horwood J, et al. Safe management of surgical smoke in the age of COVID-19. Br J Surg. 2020;107(11):1406–1413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommendations: scientific brief, 27 March 2020. World Health Organization; 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations
   Google Scholar
• Van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, et al. Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. New Eng J Med. 2020;382(16):1564–1567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tommaselli GA, Ricketts CD, Clymer JW, et al. Use of ultrasonic devices in laparoscopic surgery and risk of COVID-19 contamination: what does the evidence say? Global Surg. 2020;6:108.
   Google Scholar
• Morris SN, Fader AN, Milad MP, et al. Understanding the “scope” of the problem: Why laparoscopy is considered safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Minimally Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(4):789–791.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baggish MS, Polesz BJ, Joret D, et al. Presence of human immunodeficiency virus DNA in laser smoke. Lasers Surg Med. 1991;11(3):197–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwak HD, Kim S-H, Seo YS, et al. Detecting hepatitis B virus in surgical smoke emitted during laparoscopic surgery. Occup Environ Med. 2016;73(12):857–863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawchuk WS, Weber PJ, Lowy DR, et al. Infectious papillomavirus in the vapor of warts treated with carbon dioxide laser or electrocoagulation: detection and protection. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21(1):41–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricketts CD, Horner SK, Clymer JW, et al. A modern surgical smoke evacuator for the challenges of today’s operating room. Med Res Innovations. 2020;4(2):1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Scarano A, Inchingolo F, Lorusso F. Facial skin temperature and discomfort when wearing protective face masks: thermal infrared imaging evaluation and hands moving the mask. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(13):4624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guderian DB, Loth AG, Weiß R, et al. In vitro comparison of surgical techniques in times of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: electrocautery generates more droplets and aerosol than laser surgery or drilling. Euro Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2020;278(4):1237–1245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mowbray N, Ansell J, Warren N, et al. Is surgical smoke harmful to theater staff? a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(9):3100–3107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill DS, O'Neill JK, Powell RJ, et al. Surgical smoke - a health hazard in the operating theatre: a study to quantify exposure and a survey of the use of smoke extractor systems in UK plastic surgery units. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65(7):911–916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz L. Can efficient smoke evacuation limit aerosolization of bacteria? Aorn J. 2015;102(1):7–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pryor A. Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and EAES recommendations regarding surgical response to COVID-19 crisis. 2020. Available from: https://www.sages.org/recommendations-surgical-response-covid-19/
   Google Scholar
• Ribal MJ, Cornford P, Briganti A, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines Office Rapid Reaction Group: an organisation-wide collaborative effort to adapt the European Association of Urology guidelines recommendations to the coronavirus disease 2019 era. Euro Urol. 2020;78(1):21–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas V, Maillard C, Barnard A, et al. International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE) guidelines and recommendations on gynecological endoscopy during the evolutionary phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Euro J Obstetr Gynecol Reproductive Biol. 2020;253:133–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Clinical questions about COVID-19: questions and answers. 2020. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Zago M, Uranues S, Chiarelli ME, et al. Enhancing safety of laparoscopic surgery in COVID-19 era: clinical experience with low-cost filtration devices. Euro J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020;46(4):731–735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrade WP, Goncalves GG, Medeiros LC, et al. Low-cost, safe, and effective smoke evacuation device for surgical procedures in the COVID-19 age. J Surg Oncol. 2020;122(5):844–847.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas J, McLean N, Horsley C, et al. COVID-19: smoke testing of surgical mask and respirators. Oxford: Occupational Medicine; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Miller SG, Bourque M. PPI value analysis and standardization success through vendor partnering: a case study of hernia mesh savings and quality improvement at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. Healthcare Value Analysis Utilization Magazine. 2016;4(1):8–12.
   Google Scholar
• International Electrotechnical Commission. Part 2-2: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of high frequency surgical equipment and high frequency surgical accessories. IEC 60601-2-2. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Ethicon. Procedure Book. Data on File. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Association of periOperative Registered Nurses. AORN Go Clear Award. Available from: https://www.aorn.org/goclear
   Google Scholar
• American Health Association. Hospital Statistics. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Chen BP, Clymer JW, Turner AP, et al. Global hospital and operative costs associated with various ventral cavity procedures: a comprehensive literature review and analysis across regions. J Med Econ. 2019;22(11):1210–1220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smart L, Mumtaz K, Scharpf D, et al. Rotational thromboelastometry or conventional coagulation tests in liver transplantation: comparing blood loss, transfusions, and cost. Ann Hepatol. 2017;16(6):916–923.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. Mega Soft Patient Return Electrode for use during monopolar electrosurgery. NICE Medical Technologies Guidance. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Ethicon. Designed to enhance patient protection: MEGADYNE™ MEGA SOFT™ Reusable Patient Return Electrodes. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Ethicon. Reducing OR costs in electrosurgery MEGA SOFT™ value brief. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Consumer Price Index [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm
   Google Scholar
• NursingProcess.org. Registered Nurse Salary + Employment Outlook - 2020. [updated 2020;June 22nd, 2020]. Available from: https://www.nursingprocess.org/rn-salary/
   Google Scholar
• Avansino JR, Goldin AB, Risley R, et al. Standardization of operative equipment reduces cost. J Pediatr Surg. 2013;48(9):1843–1849.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzman MJ, Gitelis ME, Linn JG, et al. A Model of Cost Reduction and Standardization: Improved Cost Savings While Maintaining the Quality of Care. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(11):1104–1107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Eiff MC, von Eiff W, Roth A, et al. Process optimization in total knee arthoplasty procedures: Impact of size-specific instrument sets on costs and revenue. Orthopade. 2019;48(11):963–968.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng H, Clymer JW, Po-Han CB, et al. Prolonged operative duration is associated with complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg Res. 2018;229:134–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo Y, Li X, Dong J, et al. A comparison of surgical outcomes and complications between hemostatic devices for thyroid surgery: a network meta-analysis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;274(3):1269–1278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garas G, Okabayashi K, Ashrafian H, et al. Which hemostatic device in thyroid surgery? A network meta-analysis of surgical technologies. Thyroid. 2013;23(9):1138–1150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Contin P, Goossen K, Grummich K, et al. ENERgized vessel sealing systems versus CONventional hemostasis techniques in thyroid surgery–the ENERCON systematic review and network meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2013;398(8):1039–1056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health. 2011;14(4):417–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011;14(4):429–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taravella MJ, Viega J, Luiszer F, et al. Respirable particles in the excimer laser plume. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27(4):604–607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulmer BC. The hazards of surgical smoke. Aorn J. 2008;87(4):721–734.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Okoshi K, Kobayashi K, Kinoshita K, et al. Health risks associated with exposure to surgical smoke for surgeons and operation room personnel. Surg Today. 2015;45(8):957–965.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baggish MS, Baltoyannis P, Sze E. Protection of the rat lung from the harmful effects of laser smoke. Lasers Surg Med. 1988;8(3):248–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson GK, Robinson WS. Human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) in the vapors of surgical power instruments. J Med Virol. 1991;33(1):47–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang JW, Na G, Shin SH, et al. Is an ultrasonic and bipolar integrated energy device more useful than a conventional electric device in head and neck free flap reconstruction? a prospective comparison. J Oral Maxillofacial Surg. 2020;78(8):1437. e1–1437. e9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ecker T, Carvalho AL, Choe J-H, et al. Hemostasis in thyroid surgery: harmonic scalpel versus other techniques – a meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;143(1):17–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar