Economic assessment of traditional surgical intervention versus use of a new innovative radiofrequency based surgical system in device replacements

Alexander Kypta, Hermann Blessberger, Juergen Kammler, Alexander Nahler, Kurt Neeser, Michael Lichtenauer, Christoph Edlinger, Joerg Kellermair, Daniel Kiblboeck, Thomas Lambert, Johannes Auer and Clemens Steinwender

PLOS ONE, 2018, vol. 13, issue 3, 1-11

Abstract: Introduction: Intra-operative complications like mechanical damages to the leads, infections and hematomas during generator replacements of implantable pacemakers and defibrillators contribute to additional costs for hospitals. The aim of this study was to evaluate operation room use, costs and budget impact of generator replacements using either a traditional surgical intervention (TSI) with scissors, scalpel and electrocautery vs. a new radiofrequency energy based surgical system, called PEAK PlasmaBladeTM (PPB). Materials and methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a population including 508 patients with TSI and 254 patients with PPB who underwent generator replacement at the Kepler University Hospital in Linz or the St. Josef Hospital in Braunau, Austria. The economic analysis included costs of resources used for intra-operative complications (lead damages) and of procedure time for TSI vs. PPB. Results: Proportion of males, mean age and type of generator replaced were similar between the two groups. Lead damages occurred significantly more frequent with TSI than with PPB (5.3% and 0.4%; p

Date: 2018
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192587 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 92587&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0192587

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192587

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().