Direct Cost Comparison of Open Carpal Tunnel Release in Different Venues

Logan W. Carr, Brad Morrow, Brett Michelotti, Randy M. Hauck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The increased efficiency and cost savings have led many surgeons to move their practice away from the traditional operating room (OR) or outpatient surgery center (OSC) and into the clinic setting. With the cost of health care continuing to rise, the venue with the lowest cost should be utilized. We performed a direct cost analysis of a single surgeon performing an open carpal tunnel release in the OR, OSC, and clinic. Methods: Four treatment groups were prospectively studied: the hospital OR with monitored anesthesia care (OR-MAC), OSC with MAC (OSC-MAC), OSC with local anesthesia (OSC-local), and clinic with local anesthesia (clinic). To determine direct costs, a detailed inventory was recorded including the weight and disposal of medical waste. Indirect costs were not included. Results: Five cases in each treatment group were prospectively recorded. Average direct costs were OR ($213.75), OSC-MAC ($102.79), OSC-local ($55.66), and clinic ($31.71). The average weight of surgical waste, in descending order, was the OR (4.78 kg), OSC-MAC (2.78 kg), OSC-local (2.6 kg), and the clinic (0.65 kg). Using analysis of variance, the clinic's direct costs and surgical waste were significantly less than any other setting (P < .005). Conclusions: The direct costs of an open carpal tunnel release were nearly 2 times more expensive in the OSC compared with the clinic and almost 7 times more expensive in the OR. Open carpal tunnel release is more cost-effective and generates less medical waste when performed in the clinic versus all other surgical venues.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)462-465
Number of pages4
JournalHand (New York, N.Y.)
Volume14
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2019

Fingerprint

Wrist
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures
Operating Rooms
Costs and Cost Analysis
Local Anesthesia
Medical Waste Disposal
Medical Waste
Weights and Measures
Cost Savings
Ambulatory Care Facilities
Health Care Costs
Analysis of Variance
Anesthesia
Equipment and Supplies
Therapeutics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Carr, Logan W. ; Morrow, Brad ; Michelotti, Brett ; Hauck, Randy M. / Direct Cost Comparison of Open Carpal Tunnel Release in Different Venues. In: Hand (New York, N.Y.). 2019 ; Vol. 14, No. 4. pp. 462-465.
@article{6aeeb2ea7d2149948688cc4174232fca,
title = "Direct Cost Comparison of Open Carpal Tunnel Release in Different Venues",
abstract = "Background: The increased efficiency and cost savings have led many surgeons to move their practice away from the traditional operating room (OR) or outpatient surgery center (OSC) and into the clinic setting. With the cost of health care continuing to rise, the venue with the lowest cost should be utilized. We performed a direct cost analysis of a single surgeon performing an open carpal tunnel release in the OR, OSC, and clinic. Methods: Four treatment groups were prospectively studied: the hospital OR with monitored anesthesia care (OR-MAC), OSC with MAC (OSC-MAC), OSC with local anesthesia (OSC-local), and clinic with local anesthesia (clinic). To determine direct costs, a detailed inventory was recorded including the weight and disposal of medical waste. Indirect costs were not included. Results: Five cases in each treatment group were prospectively recorded. Average direct costs were OR ($213.75), OSC-MAC ($102.79), OSC-local ($55.66), and clinic ($31.71). The average weight of surgical waste, in descending order, was the OR (4.78 kg), OSC-MAC (2.78 kg), OSC-local (2.6 kg), and the clinic (0.65 kg). Using analysis of variance, the clinic's direct costs and surgical waste were significantly less than any other setting (P < .005). Conclusions: The direct costs of an open carpal tunnel release were nearly 2 times more expensive in the OSC compared with the clinic and almost 7 times more expensive in the OR. Open carpal tunnel release is more cost-effective and generates less medical waste when performed in the clinic versus all other surgical venues.",
author = "Carr, {Logan W.} and Brad Morrow and Brett Michelotti and Hauck, {Randy M.}",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1558944718755476",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "462--465",
journal = "Hand",
issn = "1558-9447",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "4",

}

Direct Cost Comparison of Open Carpal Tunnel Release in Different Venues. / Carr, Logan W.; Morrow, Brad; Michelotti, Brett; Hauck, Randy M.

In: Hand (New York, N.Y.), Vol. 14, No. 4, 01.07.2019, p. 462-465.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Direct Cost Comparison of Open Carpal Tunnel Release in Different Venues

AU - Carr, Logan W.

AU - Morrow, Brad

AU - Michelotti, Brett

AU - Hauck, Randy M.

PY - 2019/7/1

Y1 - 2019/7/1

N2 - Background: The increased efficiency and cost savings have led many surgeons to move their practice away from the traditional operating room (OR) or outpatient surgery center (OSC) and into the clinic setting. With the cost of health care continuing to rise, the venue with the lowest cost should be utilized. We performed a direct cost analysis of a single surgeon performing an open carpal tunnel release in the OR, OSC, and clinic. Methods: Four treatment groups were prospectively studied: the hospital OR with monitored anesthesia care (OR-MAC), OSC with MAC (OSC-MAC), OSC with local anesthesia (OSC-local), and clinic with local anesthesia (clinic). To determine direct costs, a detailed inventory was recorded including the weight and disposal of medical waste. Indirect costs were not included. Results: Five cases in each treatment group were prospectively recorded. Average direct costs were OR ($213.75), OSC-MAC ($102.79), OSC-local ($55.66), and clinic ($31.71). The average weight of surgical waste, in descending order, was the OR (4.78 kg), OSC-MAC (2.78 kg), OSC-local (2.6 kg), and the clinic (0.65 kg). Using analysis of variance, the clinic's direct costs and surgical waste were significantly less than any other setting (P < .005). Conclusions: The direct costs of an open carpal tunnel release were nearly 2 times more expensive in the OSC compared with the clinic and almost 7 times more expensive in the OR. Open carpal tunnel release is more cost-effective and generates less medical waste when performed in the clinic versus all other surgical venues.

AB - Background: The increased efficiency and cost savings have led many surgeons to move their practice away from the traditional operating room (OR) or outpatient surgery center (OSC) and into the clinic setting. With the cost of health care continuing to rise, the venue with the lowest cost should be utilized. We performed a direct cost analysis of a single surgeon performing an open carpal tunnel release in the OR, OSC, and clinic. Methods: Four treatment groups were prospectively studied: the hospital OR with monitored anesthesia care (OR-MAC), OSC with MAC (OSC-MAC), OSC with local anesthesia (OSC-local), and clinic with local anesthesia (clinic). To determine direct costs, a detailed inventory was recorded including the weight and disposal of medical waste. Indirect costs were not included. Results: Five cases in each treatment group were prospectively recorded. Average direct costs were OR ($213.75), OSC-MAC ($102.79), OSC-local ($55.66), and clinic ($31.71). The average weight of surgical waste, in descending order, was the OR (4.78 kg), OSC-MAC (2.78 kg), OSC-local (2.6 kg), and the clinic (0.65 kg). Using analysis of variance, the clinic's direct costs and surgical waste were significantly less than any other setting (P < .005). Conclusions: The direct costs of an open carpal tunnel release were nearly 2 times more expensive in the OSC compared with the clinic and almost 7 times more expensive in the OR. Open carpal tunnel release is more cost-effective and generates less medical waste when performed in the clinic versus all other surgical venues.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069852621&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85069852621&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1558944718755476

DO - 10.1177/1558944718755476

M3 - Article

C2 - 29388487

AN - SCOPUS:85069852621

VL - 14

SP - 462

EP - 465

JO - Hand

JF - Hand

SN - 1558-9447

IS - 4

ER -