A Survey of Morcellator Preference and Cost Comparison of the Lumenis VersaCut and Wolf Piranha Morcellators

Marcelino E. Rivera, James E. Lingeman, Kevin Heinsimer, Nadya E. York, Amy Krambeck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate operating room (OR) costs associated with the 2 available morcellators in the United States in a matched cohort and to determine benign prostatic hyperplasia surgeon's morcellator preference. Materials and Methods: Patients from 2013, the last year our institution exclusively used the VersaCut device, were matched 1:1 with the most recent patient cohort, utilizing the Wolf Piranha morcellator. Cost of morcellation including the expense of OR time and disposable instrument costs were calculated. A survey to the Endourological Society e-mail listserv was sent to determine morcellator preference. Results: We identified 142 patients who underwent holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in 2013. When compared with the VersaCut group, morcellation efficiency (4.4 vs 7.0 g/min, P <.01) and expense of OR time ($1420.80 vs $992.21, P <.005) both favored the Piranha morcellator system even when the costs of disposable instruments were factored into the analysis ($1338.81 vs $1637.50, P <.05).A total of 126 urologists responded to the survey. Of these, 56 (44.5%) perform transurethral prostate enucleations, which included 48 (86%) holmium. More endourologists use the VersaCut (n = 33, 59%) than the Piranha (n = 24, 43%) morcellator. Qualities that impacted the preference of morcellator included the preferred device is safer, faster, easier to use, reusable, and less expensive. Conclusion: We identified a significant improved efficiency and improved cost savings utilizing the Piranha morcellator even when controlling for disposable costs. Of the endourologists who responded to the survey, less than half perform transurethral enucleation. Morcellator preference is largely based on safety, efficiency, and ease of use, whereas cost and reusablility were of lesser importance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalUrology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Characiformes
Costs and Cost Analysis
Operating Rooms
Prostate
Holmium
Equipment and Supplies
Cost Savings
Solid-State Lasers
Prostatic Hyperplasia
Postal Service
Surveys and Questionnaires
Safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

A Survey of Morcellator Preference and Cost Comparison of the Lumenis VersaCut and Wolf Piranha Morcellators. / Rivera, Marcelino E.; Lingeman, James E.; Heinsimer, Kevin; York, Nadya E.; Krambeck, Amy.

In: Urology, 01.01.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rivera, Marcelino E. ; Lingeman, James E. ; Heinsimer, Kevin ; York, Nadya E. ; Krambeck, Amy. / A Survey of Morcellator Preference and Cost Comparison of the Lumenis VersaCut and Wolf Piranha Morcellators. In: Urology. 2017.
@article{e9a4707dee9b4578b87366455b81e826,
title = "A Survey of Morcellator Preference and Cost Comparison of the Lumenis VersaCut and Wolf Piranha Morcellators",
abstract = "Objective: To evaluate operating room (OR) costs associated with the 2 available morcellators in the United States in a matched cohort and to determine benign prostatic hyperplasia surgeon's morcellator preference. Materials and Methods: Patients from 2013, the last year our institution exclusively used the VersaCut device, were matched 1:1 with the most recent patient cohort, utilizing the Wolf Piranha morcellator. Cost of morcellation including the expense of OR time and disposable instrument costs were calculated. A survey to the Endourological Society e-mail listserv was sent to determine morcellator preference. Results: We identified 142 patients who underwent holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in 2013. When compared with the VersaCut group, morcellation efficiency (4.4 vs 7.0 g/min, P <.01) and expense of OR time ($1420.80 vs $992.21, P <.005) both favored the Piranha morcellator system even when the costs of disposable instruments were factored into the analysis ($1338.81 vs $1637.50, P <.05).A total of 126 urologists responded to the survey. Of these, 56 (44.5{\%}) perform transurethral prostate enucleations, which included 48 (86{\%}) holmium. More endourologists use the VersaCut (n = 33, 59{\%}) than the Piranha (n = 24, 43{\%}) morcellator. Qualities that impacted the preference of morcellator included the preferred device is safer, faster, easier to use, reusable, and less expensive. Conclusion: We identified a significant improved efficiency and improved cost savings utilizing the Piranha morcellator even when controlling for disposable costs. Of the endourologists who responded to the survey, less than half perform transurethral enucleation. Morcellator preference is largely based on safety, efficiency, and ease of use, whereas cost and reusablility were of lesser importance.",
author = "Rivera, {Marcelino E.} and Lingeman, {James E.} and Kevin Heinsimer and York, {Nadya E.} and Amy Krambeck",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2017.09.019",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Survey of Morcellator Preference and Cost Comparison of the Lumenis VersaCut and Wolf Piranha Morcellators

AU - Rivera, Marcelino E.

AU - Lingeman, James E.

AU - Heinsimer, Kevin

AU - York, Nadya E.

AU - Krambeck, Amy

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Objective: To evaluate operating room (OR) costs associated with the 2 available morcellators in the United States in a matched cohort and to determine benign prostatic hyperplasia surgeon's morcellator preference. Materials and Methods: Patients from 2013, the last year our institution exclusively used the VersaCut device, were matched 1:1 with the most recent patient cohort, utilizing the Wolf Piranha morcellator. Cost of morcellation including the expense of OR time and disposable instrument costs were calculated. A survey to the Endourological Society e-mail listserv was sent to determine morcellator preference. Results: We identified 142 patients who underwent holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in 2013. When compared with the VersaCut group, morcellation efficiency (4.4 vs 7.0 g/min, P <.01) and expense of OR time ($1420.80 vs $992.21, P <.005) both favored the Piranha morcellator system even when the costs of disposable instruments were factored into the analysis ($1338.81 vs $1637.50, P <.05).A total of 126 urologists responded to the survey. Of these, 56 (44.5%) perform transurethral prostate enucleations, which included 48 (86%) holmium. More endourologists use the VersaCut (n = 33, 59%) than the Piranha (n = 24, 43%) morcellator. Qualities that impacted the preference of morcellator included the preferred device is safer, faster, easier to use, reusable, and less expensive. Conclusion: We identified a significant improved efficiency and improved cost savings utilizing the Piranha morcellator even when controlling for disposable costs. Of the endourologists who responded to the survey, less than half perform transurethral enucleation. Morcellator preference is largely based on safety, efficiency, and ease of use, whereas cost and reusablility were of lesser importance.

AB - Objective: To evaluate operating room (OR) costs associated with the 2 available morcellators in the United States in a matched cohort and to determine benign prostatic hyperplasia surgeon's morcellator preference. Materials and Methods: Patients from 2013, the last year our institution exclusively used the VersaCut device, were matched 1:1 with the most recent patient cohort, utilizing the Wolf Piranha morcellator. Cost of morcellation including the expense of OR time and disposable instrument costs were calculated. A survey to the Endourological Society e-mail listserv was sent to determine morcellator preference. Results: We identified 142 patients who underwent holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in 2013. When compared with the VersaCut group, morcellation efficiency (4.4 vs 7.0 g/min, P <.01) and expense of OR time ($1420.80 vs $992.21, P <.005) both favored the Piranha morcellator system even when the costs of disposable instruments were factored into the analysis ($1338.81 vs $1637.50, P <.05).A total of 126 urologists responded to the survey. Of these, 56 (44.5%) perform transurethral prostate enucleations, which included 48 (86%) holmium. More endourologists use the VersaCut (n = 33, 59%) than the Piranha (n = 24, 43%) morcellator. Qualities that impacted the preference of morcellator included the preferred device is safer, faster, easier to use, reusable, and less expensive. Conclusion: We identified a significant improved efficiency and improved cost savings utilizing the Piranha morcellator even when controlling for disposable costs. Of the endourologists who responded to the survey, less than half perform transurethral enucleation. Morcellator preference is largely based on safety, efficiency, and ease of use, whereas cost and reusablility were of lesser importance.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85033386905&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85033386905&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2017.09.019

DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2017.09.019

M3 - Article

C2 - 29030074

AN - SCOPUS:85033386905

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

ER -