• J-L Demeere, Ch Merckx, and N Demeere.
• Kliniek St Jan Brussels, Belgium. jdemeere@klstjean.be
• Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2006 Jan 1;57(2):145-51.

AbstractThe aim of the prospective randomised study is to compare the cost effectiveness of three general anaesthesia techniques for total hip replacement surgery and the cost minimisation by use of anaesthetics. For induction propofol was used in the three techniques. For maintenance, we used desflurane, or sevoflurane, or propofol. There was no significant difference in consumption of drugs for pain treatment, treatment of nausea and vomiting or cost of hospital stay or total cost for pharmacy. In terms of cost-effectiveness we can consider that the three techniques are similar. The cost of an i.v. technique was always higher than inhaled anaesthetics. The major cost in anaesthesia is the fee for the anaesthesiologist. But all in, the cost of anaesthesia was only 15.1% of the total cost of the procedure. Cost of inhaled or i.v. anaesthetics was 0.55% to 1.0% of the total cost. There was a discrepancy between the measured consumption of inhaled anaesthetics and the consumption (and cost) on the invoice. Cost minimisation based on anaesthetic medication is ridiculously by small considering the total cost of the procedure.

49 keywords...

hide…