Journal
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 102, Issue 11, Pages 1556-1563Publisher
BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311319
Keywords
clinical trial; treatment lasers; treatment surgery
Categories
Funding
- Alcon Incorporated (IIT) [17440075]
- NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative London
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Aims To test a hypothesis that cataract operating room (OR) productivity can be improved with a femtosecond laser (FL) using a hub-and-spoke model and whether any increase in productivity can offset additional costs relating to the FL. Methods 400 eyes of 400 patients were enrolled in a randomised-controlled trial comparing FL-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) with conventional phacoemulsification surgery (CPS). 299 of 400 operations were performed on designated high-volume theatre lists (FLACS=134, CPS=165), where a hub-and-spoke FLACS model (1xFL, 2xORs=2:1) was compared with independent CPS theatre lists. Details of operative timings and OR utilisation were recorded. Differences in productivity between hub-and-spoke FLACS and CPS sessions were compared using an economic model including testing hypothetical 3:1 and 4:1 models. Results The duration of the operation itself was 12.044.89min for FLACS compared with CPS of 14.54 +/- 6.1min (P<0.001). Total patient time in the OR was reduced from 23.39 +/- 6.89min with CPS to 20.34 +/- 5.82min with FLACS (P<0.001)(reduction of 3.05min per case). There was no difference in OR turnaround time between the models. Average number of patients treated per theatre list was 9 for FLACS and 8 for CPS. OR utilisation was 92.08% for FLACS and 95.83% for CPS (P<0.001). Using a previously established economic model, the FLACS service cost 144.60 pound more than CPS per case. This difference would be 131 pound and 125 pound for 3:1 and 4:1 models, respectively. Conclusion The FLACS hub-and-spoke model was significantly faster than CPS, with patients spending less time in the OR. This enabled an improvement in productivity, but insufficient to meaningfully offset the additional costs relating to FLACS.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available