MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Economic Comparison of Hand-Sutured and Coupler-Assisted Microvascular Anastomoses

2015· article· en· W2411186106 on OpenAlexaffabout
Linden K. Head, Douglas R. McKay

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnastomosisMedicineSurgeryVariable costContext (archaeology)EconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Surgical outcomes associated with the use of microvascular anastomotic coupling devices (MACD) are well reported in the literature – compared with hand-sutured anastomoses, MACDs confer equivalent flap survival1,2 with reduced operative time.3,4 The purpose of this study was to assess the economics of a hand-sutured anastomosis compared with a coupler-assisted anastomosis. Following up on our previous study that focused on the economics in a Canadian context,5 we expanded the scope of our research to include the American market. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Economics were analyzed for a free flap requiring a single venous anastomosis carried out with either a hand-sutured anastomosis or with a coupler-assisted anastomosis using the GEM COUPLER (Synovis Micro Companies Alliance Incorporated; Birmingham, Alabama). All fixed and variable costs incurred with each respective anastomotic technique were identified with an activity-based cost analysis – relevant economic variables included disposable costs (e.g. coupler ring, suture), capital expenditure of the device, and both fixed and variable operating room (OR) costs (e.g. overhead, labor). Supplier and manufacturer price lists were used to quantify disposable costs and capital expenditures. Two separate literature reviews were carried out to identify microsurgical OR costs and operating time reductions observed with coupler-assisted anastomoses. Historically reported costs were converted to present day values using the United States Medical Care Inflation Rate. The total savings per use and the number of uses required to offset the coupler device’s capital expenditure were calculated. RESULTS: For each venous anastomosis use of the anastomotic coupler increased disposable costs by $284.40 compared with a hand-sutured anastomosis (cost of coupler ring less savings from unused suture). Total fixed and variable OR costs (includes overhead, labor, supplies, excludes physicians fees) were $30.82 per minute. Operating time was reduced by a mean of 16.9 minutes with a coupler-assisted anastomosis, decreasing OR costs by $519.29. Total savings of $234.89 were generated for each coupler-assisted anastomosis, recuperating the device’s capital expenditure after 13 uses. CONCLUSION: Despite higher disposable costs, reduced operative time allows the anastomotic coupler to generate savings compared with hand-sutured anastomoses. Despite its limitations and simplicity, this study provides a practical economic analysis of the microvascular anastomotic coupler that can help inform purchasing decisions, particularly for smaller volume centers where the economic rationale may be less clear.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207