IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0268708.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Budget impact analysis of HARMONIC FOCUS™+ Shears for mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery with axillary lymph node dissection compared with monopolar electrocautery from an Italian hospital perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Alessandra Piemontese
  • Thibaut Galvain
  • Lirazel Swindells
  • Vito Parago
  • Giovanni Tommaselli
  • Nadine Jamous

Abstract

Background: Mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, both with axillary lymph node dissection, are common treatments for early-stage breast cancer. Monopolar electrocautery is typically used for both procedures, despite evidence of improved clinical outcomes with HARMONIC FOCUS™+. This analysis evaluated the budget impact of adopting HARMONIC FOCUS™+ versus monopolar electrocautery for patients undergoing these procedures from an Italian hospital perspective. Methods: Total costs for an annual caseload of 100 patients undergoing mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, with axillary lymph node dissection, with either the intervention or comparator were calculated. Italian clinical and cost input data were utilised. The analysis included costs for the device, operating room time, postoperative length of stay, treating seroma and managing postoperative chest wall drainage. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty of model input values. Two scenario analyses investigated the impact of conservative estimates of postoperative length of stay reduction and daily hospital cost on the simulated cost difference. Results: HARMONIC FOCUS™+ achieves annual savings of EUR 100,043 compared with monopolar electrocautery, derived from lower costs for operating room time, postoperative length of stay and seroma and postoperative chest wall drainage management, offsetting the incremental device cost increase (EUR 43,268). Cost savings are maintained in scenario analyses and across all variations in parameters in deterministic sensitivity analysis, with postoperative hospital stay costs being key drivers of budget impact. The mean (interquartile range) cost savings with HARMONIC FOCUS™+ versus monopolar electrocautery in probabilistic sensitivity analysis are EUR 101,637 (EUR 64,390–137,093) with a 98% probability of being cost saving. Conclusions: The intervention demonstrates robust cost savings compared with monopolar electrocautery for mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, with axillary lymph node dissection, in an Italian hospital setting, and improved clinical and resource outcomes. These findings, with other clinical and cost analyses, support HARMONIC FOCUS™+ use in this setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandra Piemontese & Thibaut Galvain & Lirazel Swindells & Vito Parago & Giovanni Tommaselli & Nadine Jamous, 2022. "Budget impact analysis of HARMONIC FOCUS™+ Shears for mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery with axillary lymph node dissection compared with monopolar electrocautery from an Italian hospital persp," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-12, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268708
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268708
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268708
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268708&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0268708?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268708. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.