Javascript must be enabled to continue!
A systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis of reusable vs. single‐use flexible bronchoscopes
View through CrossRef
Summary
The cost effectiveness of reusable vs. single‐use flexible bronchoscopy in the peri‐operative setting has yet to be determined. We therefore aimed to determine this and hypothesised that single‐use flexible bronchoscopes are cost effective compared with reusable flexible bronchoscopes. We conducted a systematic review of the literature, seeking all reports of cross‐contamination or infection following reusable bronchoscope use in any clinical setting. We calculated the incidence of these outcomes and then determined the cost per patient of treating clinical consequences of bronchoscope‐induced infection. We also performed a micro‐costing analysis to quantify the economics of reusable flexible bronchoscopes in the peri‐operative setting from a high‐throughput tertiary centre. This produced an accurate estimate of the cost per use of reusable flexible bronchoscopes. We then performed a cost effectiveness analysis, combining the data obtained from the systematic review and micro‐costing analysis. We included 16 studies, with a reported incidence of cross‐contamination or infection of 2.8%. In the micro‐costing analysis, the total cost per use of a reusable flexible bronchoscope was calculated to be £249 sterling. The cost per use of a single‐use flexible bronchoscope was £220 sterling. The cost effectiveness analysis demonstrated that reusable flexible bronchoscopes have a cost per patient use of £511 sterling due to the costs of treatment of infection. The findings from this study suggest benefits from the use of single‐use flexible bronchoscopes in terms of cost effectiveness, cross‐contamination and resource utilisation.
Title: A systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis of reusable vs. single‐use flexible bronchoscopes
Description:
Summary
The cost effectiveness of reusable vs.
single‐use flexible bronchoscopy in the peri‐operative setting has yet to be determined.
We therefore aimed to determine this and hypothesised that single‐use flexible bronchoscopes are cost effective compared with reusable flexible bronchoscopes.
We conducted a systematic review of the literature, seeking all reports of cross‐contamination or infection following reusable bronchoscope use in any clinical setting.
We calculated the incidence of these outcomes and then determined the cost per patient of treating clinical consequences of bronchoscope‐induced infection.
We also performed a micro‐costing analysis to quantify the economics of reusable flexible bronchoscopes in the peri‐operative setting from a high‐throughput tertiary centre.
This produced an accurate estimate of the cost per use of reusable flexible bronchoscopes.
We then performed a cost effectiveness analysis, combining the data obtained from the systematic review and micro‐costing analysis.
We included 16 studies, with a reported incidence of cross‐contamination or infection of 2.
8%.
In the micro‐costing analysis, the total cost per use of a reusable flexible bronchoscope was calculated to be £249 sterling.
The cost per use of a single‐use flexible bronchoscope was £220 sterling.
The cost effectiveness analysis demonstrated that reusable flexible bronchoscopes have a cost per patient use of £511 sterling due to the costs of treatment of infection.
The findings from this study suggest benefits from the use of single‐use flexible bronchoscopes in terms of cost effectiveness, cross‐contamination and resource utilisation.
Related Results
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical activi...
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most...
Micro-cost analysis of reusable compared to affordable single-use flexible ureteroscopes
Micro-cost analysis of reusable compared to affordable single-use flexible ureteroscopes
Introduction: Flexible ureteroscopy is increasingly used for managing upper urinary tract pathologies, particularly kidney stones. With the emergence of affordable, single-use flex...
Cash‐based approaches in humanitarian emergencies: a systematic review
Cash‐based approaches in humanitarian emergencies: a systematic review
This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness, efficiency and implementation of cash transfers in humanitarian settings. The review summarises evidence from five studi...
Clinical comparative study of single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of lower pole stones:a retrospective case-controlled study
Clinical comparative study of single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of lower pole stones:a retrospective case-controlled study
Abstract
Objectives:To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of lower pole stones.
Methods:We ...
Safety and Efficacy of Atezolizumab in Ovarian Cancer
Safety and Efficacy of Atezolizumab in Ovarian Cancer
Abstract
Introduction
Although the efficacy of PD-L1 blockade has been evaluated in analyses that combine pharmacologically distinct antibodies, the specific efficacy and safety of...
Awareness, Adoption, and Perceived Barriers to Reusable Menstrual Products Among Women: A Pilot Cross-Sectional Study
Awareness, Adoption, and Perceived Barriers to Reusable Menstrual Products Among Women: A Pilot Cross-Sectional Study
Background: Reusable menstrual products (RMPs), such as menstrual cups, reusable cloth pads, and period underwear, offer a safe, affordable, and environmentally sustainable alterna...
Environmental impact of single-use, reusable, and mixed trocar systems used for laparoscopic cholecystectomies
Environmental impact of single-use, reusable, and mixed trocar systems used for laparoscopic cholecystectomies
Introduction
Climate change is one of the 21st century’s biggest public health issues and health care contributes up to 10% of the emissions of greenhouse gases in developed countr...

