학술논문
High-energy devices in different surgical settings: lessons learnt from a full health technology assessment report developed by SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica)
Document Type
Original Paper
Author
Vettoretto, Nereo; Foglia, Emanuela; Gerardi, Chiara; Lettieri, Emanuele; Nocco, Umberto; Botteri, Emanuele; Bracale, Umberto; Caracino, Valerio; Carrano, Francesco Maria; Cassinotti, Elisa; Giovenzana, Marco; Giuliani, Beatrice; Iossa, Angelo; Milone, Marco; Montori, Giulia; Peltrini, Roberto; Piatto, Giacomo; Podda, Mauro; Sartori, Alberto; Allocati, Eleonora; Ferrario, Lucrezia; Asperti, Federica; Songia, Letizia; Garattini, Silvio; Agresta, Ferdinando
Source
Surgical Endoscopy: And Other Interventional Techniques. 37(4):2548-2565
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
0930-2794
1432-2218
1432-2218
Abstract
Background: The present paper aims at evaluating the potential benefits of high-energy devices (HEDs) in the Italian surgical practice, defining the comparative efficacy and safety profiles, as well as the potential economic and organizational advantages for hospitals and patients, with respect to standard monopolar or bipolar devices.Methods: A Health Technology Assessment was conducted in 2021 assuming the hospital perspective, comparing HEDs and standard monopolar/bipolar devices, within eleven surgical settings: appendectomy, hepatic resections, colorectal resections, cholecystectomy, splenectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, thyroidectomy, esophago-gastrectomy, breast surgery, adrenalectomy, and pancreatectomy. The nine EUnetHTA Core Model dimensions were deployed considering a multi-methods approach. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used: (1) a systematic literature review for the definition of the comparative efficacy and safety data; (2) administration of qualitative questionnaires, completed by 23 healthcare professionals (according to 7-item Likert scale, ranging from − 3 to + 3); and (3) health-economics tools, useful for the economic evaluation of the clinical pathway and budget impact analysis, and for the definition of the organizational and accessibility advantages, in terms of time or procedures’ savings.Results: The literature declared a decrease in operating time and length of stay in using HEDs in most surgical settings. While HEDs would lead to a marginal investment for the conduction of 178,619 surgeries on annual basis, their routinely implementation would generate significant organizational savings. A decrease equal to − 5.25/−9.02% of operating room time and to − 5.03/−30.73% of length of stay emerged. An advantage in accessibility to surgery could be hypothesized in a 9% of increase, due to the gaining in operatory slots. Professionals’ perceptions crystallized and confirmed literature evidence, declaring a better safety and effectiveness profile. An improvement in both patients and caregivers’ quality-of-life emerged.Conclusions: The results have demonstrated the strategic relevance related to HEDs introduction, their economic sustainability, and feasibility, as well as the potentialities in process improvement.