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

Claudia Ottardi (), Alessio Damonti (), Emanuele Porazzi (), Emanuela Foglia (), Lucrezia Ferrario (), Tomaso Villa (), Enrico Aimar (), Marco Brayda-Bruno () and Fabio Galbusera ()
Additional contact information
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
Enrico Aimar: IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi
Marco Brayda-Bruno: IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi
Fabio Galbusera: IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi

Health Economics Review, 2017, vol. 7, issue 1, 1-10

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: Lumbar arthrodesis; Multi-criteria decision analysis; Health technology assessment; Reusable instrument; Disposable instrument; Italy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-017-0153-7 Abstract (text/html)

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:spr:hecrev:v:7:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-017-0153-7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/journal/13561

DOI: 10.1186/s13561-017-0153-7

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics Review is currently edited by J. Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg

More articles in Health Economics Review from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().