MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Low fresh gas flow balanced anesthesia versus target controlled intravenous infusion anesthesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A cost-minimization analysis
Low fresh gas flow balanced anesthesia versus target controlled intravenous infusion anesthesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A cost-minimization analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Low fresh gas flow balanced anesthesia versus target controlled intravenous infusion anesthesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A cost-minimization analysis
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Low fresh gas flow balanced anesthesia versus target controlled intravenous infusion anesthesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A cost-minimization analysis
Low fresh gas flow balanced anesthesia versus target controlled intravenous infusion anesthesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A cost-minimization analysis

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Low fresh gas flow balanced anesthesia versus target controlled intravenous infusion anesthesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A cost-minimization analysis
Low fresh gas flow balanced anesthesia versus target controlled intravenous infusion anesthesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A cost-minimization analysis
Journal Article

Low fresh gas flow balanced anesthesia versus target controlled intravenous infusion anesthesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A cost-minimization analysis

2008
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Background: Laparoscopic surgery is widely recognized as a well-tolerated and effective method for cholecystectomy. It is also considered cost saving because it has been associated with a decreased hospital length of stay. Variables that might lead to increased costs in laparoscopic surgery are the technique and drugs used in anesthesia. Objective: The goal of this study was to compare the costs of 2 anesthetic techniques used in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)—balanced versus IV anesthesia—from the standpoint of an outpatient surgical department, with a time horizon of 1 year. Methods: Patients scheduled to undergo elective LC were enrolled in this prospective case study. Patients were randomly allocated to receive balanced anesthesia, administered as low fresh gas flow (LFGF) with inhalational sevoflurane and IV sufentanil in a target controlled infusion (LFGF SS group), or IV anesthesia, administered as IV propofol/sufentanil in a target controlled infusion (TCI group). We used a microcosting procedure to measure health care resource utilization in individual patients to detect treatment differences. The costs of medications used for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia during surgery were considered for LFGF SS and TCI. Other end points included duration of anesthesia; mean times to early emergence, tracheal extubation, orientation, and postanesthesia discharge (PAD); pain intensity before first analgesia; number of analgesics required in the first 24 hours after surgery; and prevalences of nausea, vomiting, and agitation. Results: A total of 60 patients were included in this analysis (male/female ratios in the LFGF SS and TCI groups: 11/19 and 12/18, respectively; mean [SD] ages, 48 [7.9] and 47 [8.6] years; and mean [SD] body mass indexes, 26 [2.0] and 26 [3.0] kg/m 2). The costs of anesthetics were significantly lower with LFGF SS compared with TCI (€17.40 [€2.66] vs €22.01 [€2.50] [2006 euros]). Times to early emergence and tracheal extubation were significantly shorter with LFGF SS than TCI (5.97 [1.16] vs 7.73 [1.48] minutes and 7.57 [1.07] vs 8.87 [1.45] minutes, respectively). There were no significant between-group differences in mean duration of anesthesia; times to orientation and PAD; pain intensity before first analgesia; number of analgesics required in the first 24 hours; or prevalences of nausea, vomiting, and agitation. Because no clinically significant differences in the anesthetic results were observed, a cost-minimization analysis was conducted and found that using LFGF SS, the outpatient surgical department could realize a budget savings of €454 per 100 patients. For the nearly 1000 expected patients per year, the savings for the department was calculated as €4540. Conclusion: The results from this cost analysis in these patients who underwent elective LC suggest that the use of sevoflurane through the LFGF technique would be cost saving in this outpatient surgical department.