Economic Comparison of Hand-Sutured and Coupler-Assisted Microvascular Anastomoses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compared with hand-sewn anastomoses, microvascular anastomotic coupling devices (MACDs) provide equivalent flap survival and reduced operative time. To date, an economic analysis of MACDs has not been reported. The objective of this study was to evaluate the economics of a venous anastomosis performed using a coupling device compared with a hand-sewn anastomosis. METHODS: Economics were modeled for a single free tissue transfer (FTT) requiring one venous anastomosis performed with either hand-sewn sutures or with a coupler-assisted anastomosis using the GEM COUPLER. Fixed and variable costs incurred with each anastomotic technique were identified with an activity-based cost analysis. Price lists were retrieved from suppliers to quantify disposable costs and capital expenditures. Two literature reviews were executed to identify microsurgical operating room (OR) costs and operating time reductions with coupler-assisted anastomoses. RESULTS: For each venous anastomosis, the use of the anastomotic coupler increased disposable costs by $284.40 compared with a hand-sutured anastomosis. Total fixed and variable OR costs 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: Compared with a hand-sewn venous anastomosis, an MACD produces savings with each case and quickly recoups the device's capital expenditure. Despite its limitations and simplicity, this study provides a practical economic analysis 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".