Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 2/2014

01-02-2014 | Rhinology

Patient specific or routine preoperative workup in septoplasty: which one is cost-effective?

Authors: Haşmet Yazıcı, Hayrettin Daşkaya, Sedat Doğan, İlknur Haberal, Taner Çiftçi

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 2/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

This study aimed at determining the limits of preoperative investigation and calculate estimated cost analysis in septoplasty with and without turbinate surgery. A retrospective chart review. The study was conducted at secondary referral center. A retrospective chart review of patients who have undergone septoplasty over a 1-year period was performed. The need for routine (battery testing) versus patient specific preoperative workup of 380 septoplasty patients was evaluated. Mean age of the patients was 31.5 ± 4.6. The patients were classified into three groups according to preoperative routine laboratory testing results: (1) normal group (2) abnormal group and (3) abnormal out of action limit group. Medical records were revaluated by an anesthesiologist and ear nose throat doctor according to preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists guidelines to calculate estimated possible costs in case of patient specific preoperative workup. Three hundred seventy-seven patients were within ASA 1 group and three patients were within ASA 2. According to preoperative battery testing results, 5.8 % of the patients (n = 22) were in group 1, 93.4 % (n = 355) were in group 2, 0.8 % (n = 3) were in group 3. Surgery was postponed due to concomitant pathologies for about 44 days (10–180 days) in four patients (1.1 %). Preoperative routine laboratory testing costs were calculated as $41.08 ± 6.69 (40.25–128.78) per patient. When medical records were reevaluated retrospectively, estimated cost per patient would be $8.91 ± 10.40 (7.18–79.91) if patient specific preoperative workup were done. Individual preoperative testing would save $12,226.78 annually and total cost would decrease from $15,612.41 to $3,385.62. (p = 0.001). Patient-specific preoperative workup is more cost effective than routine battery testing in septoplasty with and without turbinate surgery.
Literature
1.
go back to reference American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Preanaesthesia evaluation (2002) Practice advisory for pre-anaesthesia evaluation: A report by American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Preanaesthesia evaluation. Anesthesiology 96:485–496CrossRef American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Preanaesthesia evaluation (2002) Practice advisory for pre-anaesthesia evaluation: A report by American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Preanaesthesia evaluation. Anesthesiology 96:485–496CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Kaplan EB, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann AJ et al (1985) The usefulness of pre-operative laboratory screening. JAMA 253:3576–3581PubMedCrossRef Kaplan EB, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann AJ et al (1985) The usefulness of pre-operative laboratory screening. JAMA 253:3576–3581PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Roizen MF (2000) More preoperative assessment by physicians and less by laboratory tests. N Eng J Med 342:204–205CrossRef Roizen MF (2000) More preoperative assessment by physicians and less by laboratory tests. N Eng J Med 342:204–205CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Roizen MF, Lichtor JL (2003) Preoperative assessment and premedication for adults. In: Healy TEJ, Knight PR (eds) Wylie and Churchill Davidson’s A practice of Anesthesia, 7th edn. Amold press, London, pp 415–425 Roizen MF, Lichtor JL (2003) Preoperative assessment and premedication for adults. In: Healy TEJ, Knight PR (eds) Wylie and Churchill Davidson’s A practice of Anesthesia, 7th edn. Amold press, London, pp 415–425
6.
7.
go back to reference Brown SR, Brown J (2011) Why do physicians order unnecessary preoperative tests? A qualitative study. Fam Med 43(5):338–343PubMed Brown SR, Brown J (2011) Why do physicians order unnecessary preoperative tests? A qualitative study. Fam Med 43(5):338–343PubMed
8.
go back to reference Perez A, Planell J, Bacardaz C et al (1994) Value of routine preoperative tests: a multicentre study in four general hospitals. Br J Anaesth 74:250–256CrossRef Perez A, Planell J, Bacardaz C et al (1994) Value of routine preoperative tests: a multicentre study in four general hospitals. Br J Anaesth 74:250–256CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Munro J, Booth A, Nichol J (1997) Routine preoperative testing: a systematic review of the evidence. Health Technol Assess 12:1–62 Munro J, Booth A, Nichol J (1997) Routine preoperative testing: a systematic review of the evidence. Health Technol Assess 12:1–62
10.
go back to reference Schein OD, Katz J, Bass EB et al (2000) The value of routine preoperative medical testing before cataract surgery. N Engl J Med 342:168–175PubMedCrossRef Schein OD, Katz J, Bass EB et al (2000) The value of routine preoperative medical testing before cataract surgery. N Engl J Med 342:168–175PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Pasternak LR (2009) Preoperative testing: moving from individual testing to risk management. Anesth Analg 108(2):393–394PubMedCrossRef Pasternak LR (2009) Preoperative testing: moving from individual testing to risk management. Anesth Analg 108(2):393–394PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Vogt AW, Henson LC (1997) Unindicated preoperative testing: ASA physical status and financial implications. J ClinAnesth 9:437–441 Vogt AW, Henson LC (1997) Unindicated preoperative testing: ASA physical status and financial implications. J ClinAnesth 9:437–441
Metadata
Title
Patient specific or routine preoperative workup in septoplasty: which one is cost-effective?
Authors
Haşmet Yazıcı
Hayrettin Daşkaya
Sedat Doğan
İlknur Haberal
Taner Çiftçi
Publication date
01-02-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2541-x

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 2/2014 Go to the issue