Reprocessed bipolar energy for laparoscopic colectomy

Is it worth it?

Justin T. Brady, Avinash Bhakta, Scott R. Steele, Joseph A. Trunzo, Anthony J. Senagore, Krista Holmgren, Anthony Schillero, Bradley J. Champagne

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    1 Citation (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Background: Reprocessed (re-sterilized) bipolar energy devices represent one effort to reduce operative costs. Methods: Between January 2014 to October 2015, 76 patients underwent laparoscopic colectomy using a reprocessed bipolar energy device and were case-matched to 76 patients from a prospectively-maintained database from November 2012 to December 2013 when an identical, new device was used. Outcomes included reprocessed device safety, efficiency and hospital costs. Results: There was no difference in patient demographics, operative times or failed pedicle ligation requiring intervention between groups (all P > 0.05). In 19.7% of reprocessed cases, the surgeon opened an additional new device after dissatisfaction with the reprocessed instrument. Operating room costs and total costs were less for the reprocessed device group (all P < 0.05). Conclusion: Reprocessed bipolar energy devices were associated with savings in operative expenses, however, larger studies are warranted due to the high surgeon dissatisfaction regarding safety concerns with the reprocessed equipment.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    JournalAmerican Journal of Surgery
    DOIs
    StateAccepted/In press - Oct 4 2016

    Fingerprint

    Colectomy
    Equipment and Supplies
    Costs and Cost Analysis
    Equipment Safety
    Hospital Costs
    Operating Rooms
    Operative Time
    Ligation
    Demography
    Databases
    Safety

    Keywords

    • Colorectal surgery
    • Cost analysis
    • Laparoscopy

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Surgery

    Cite this

    Brady, J. T., Bhakta, A., Steele, S. R., Trunzo, J. A., Senagore, A. J., Holmgren, K., ... Champagne, B. J. (Accepted/In press). Reprocessed bipolar energy for laparoscopic colectomy: Is it worth it? American Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.02.012

    Reprocessed bipolar energy for laparoscopic colectomy : Is it worth it? / Brady, Justin T.; Bhakta, Avinash; Steele, Scott R.; Trunzo, Joseph A.; Senagore, Anthony J.; Holmgren, Krista; Schillero, Anthony; Champagne, Bradley J.

    In: American Journal of Surgery, 04.10.2016.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Brady, JT, Bhakta, A, Steele, SR, Trunzo, JA, Senagore, AJ, Holmgren, K, Schillero, A & Champagne, BJ 2016, 'Reprocessed bipolar energy for laparoscopic colectomy: Is it worth it?', American Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.02.012
    Brady, Justin T. ; Bhakta, Avinash ; Steele, Scott R. ; Trunzo, Joseph A. ; Senagore, Anthony J. ; Holmgren, Krista ; Schillero, Anthony ; Champagne, Bradley J. / Reprocessed bipolar energy for laparoscopic colectomy : Is it worth it?. In: American Journal of Surgery. 2016.
    @article{e4edd16973634a6c9ec99dcc48c35a20,
    title = "Reprocessed bipolar energy for laparoscopic colectomy: Is it worth it?",
    abstract = "Background: Reprocessed (re-sterilized) bipolar energy devices represent one effort to reduce operative costs. Methods: Between January 2014 to October 2015, 76 patients underwent laparoscopic colectomy using a reprocessed bipolar energy device and were case-matched to 76 patients from a prospectively-maintained database from November 2012 to December 2013 when an identical, new device was used. Outcomes included reprocessed device safety, efficiency and hospital costs. Results: There was no difference in patient demographics, operative times or failed pedicle ligation requiring intervention between groups (all P > 0.05). In 19.7{\%} of reprocessed cases, the surgeon opened an additional new device after dissatisfaction with the reprocessed instrument. Operating room costs and total costs were less for the reprocessed device group (all P < 0.05). Conclusion: Reprocessed bipolar energy devices were associated with savings in operative expenses, however, larger studies are warranted due to the high surgeon dissatisfaction regarding safety concerns with the reprocessed equipment.",
    keywords = "Colorectal surgery, Cost analysis, Laparoscopy",
    author = "Brady, {Justin T.} and Avinash Bhakta and Steele, {Scott R.} and Trunzo, {Joseph A.} and Senagore, {Anthony J.} and Krista Holmgren and Anthony Schillero and Champagne, {Bradley J.}",
    year = "2016",
    month = "10",
    day = "4",
    doi = "10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.02.012",
    language = "English (US)",
    journal = "American Journal of Surgery",
    issn = "0002-9610",
    publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Reprocessed bipolar energy for laparoscopic colectomy

    T2 - Is it worth it?

    AU - Brady, Justin T.

    AU - Bhakta, Avinash

    AU - Steele, Scott R.

    AU - Trunzo, Joseph A.

    AU - Senagore, Anthony J.

    AU - Holmgren, Krista

    AU - Schillero, Anthony

    AU - Champagne, Bradley J.

    PY - 2016/10/4

    Y1 - 2016/10/4

    N2 - Background: Reprocessed (re-sterilized) bipolar energy devices represent one effort to reduce operative costs. Methods: Between January 2014 to October 2015, 76 patients underwent laparoscopic colectomy using a reprocessed bipolar energy device and were case-matched to 76 patients from a prospectively-maintained database from November 2012 to December 2013 when an identical, new device was used. Outcomes included reprocessed device safety, efficiency and hospital costs. Results: There was no difference in patient demographics, operative times or failed pedicle ligation requiring intervention between groups (all P > 0.05). In 19.7% of reprocessed cases, the surgeon opened an additional new device after dissatisfaction with the reprocessed instrument. Operating room costs and total costs were less for the reprocessed device group (all P < 0.05). Conclusion: Reprocessed bipolar energy devices were associated with savings in operative expenses, however, larger studies are warranted due to the high surgeon dissatisfaction regarding safety concerns with the reprocessed equipment.

    AB - Background: Reprocessed (re-sterilized) bipolar energy devices represent one effort to reduce operative costs. Methods: Between January 2014 to October 2015, 76 patients underwent laparoscopic colectomy using a reprocessed bipolar energy device and were case-matched to 76 patients from a prospectively-maintained database from November 2012 to December 2013 when an identical, new device was used. Outcomes included reprocessed device safety, efficiency and hospital costs. Results: There was no difference in patient demographics, operative times or failed pedicle ligation requiring intervention between groups (all P > 0.05). In 19.7% of reprocessed cases, the surgeon opened an additional new device after dissatisfaction with the reprocessed instrument. Operating room costs and total costs were less for the reprocessed device group (all P < 0.05). Conclusion: Reprocessed bipolar energy devices were associated with savings in operative expenses, however, larger studies are warranted due to the high surgeon dissatisfaction regarding safety concerns with the reprocessed equipment.

    KW - Colorectal surgery

    KW - Cost analysis

    KW - Laparoscopy

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85014447163&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85014447163&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.02.012

    DO - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.02.012

    M3 - Article

    JO - American Journal of Surgery

    JF - American Journal of Surgery

    SN - 0002-9610

    ER -