2SPD-015 Medico-economic evaluation of single-use versus reusable hysteroscopes in outpatient gynaecological consultations

<h3>Background and Importance</h3> Hysteroscopy is a commonly performed procedure for gynaecological diagnosis and surgeries, traditionally conducted in the operating room (OR). To free up OR slots and simplify patient’s pathways, hysteroscopies were partially shifted to outpatient consultations. Due to the lack of reusable equipment, single-use hysteroscopes (SUH) were provided as a temporary solution. One year after implementation, a medico-economic analysis is essential to assess the long-term viability of these devices compared to rigid reusable hysteroscopes (RRH). <h3>Aim and Objectives</h3> Comparing costs associated with SUH and RRH in outpatient consultations, while assessing the technical and organisational advantages and disadvantages of each solution. <h3>Material and Methods</h3> A retrospective economic evaluation was carried out based on SUH usage between June 2023 and June 2024 in our institution. Medical supplies needs were identified, and a comparison was made between SUH and RRH from both technical (literature and user expertise) and economic perspectives (quotes from suppliers). Internal costs were estimated, including sterilisation process, waste management, and paramedical staff time. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 66 hysteroscopies were performed between June 2023 and June 2024. Of these, 36 required a single-use crocodile forceps, leading to an average cost of €300 per procedure, compared to €165 with RRH. SUH eliminate cross-contamination risks and reduce paramedical staff time by avoiding pre-disinfection and transport to the sterilisation unit. However, their use exposes healthcare establisments to supply shortages and significant ecological impacts. Gynaecologists reported dissatisfaction with SUH due to the overly flexible tip, which complicates cervical passage and limits manoeuvrability. RRH significantly reduces average costs and offers superior image quality. However, reusable devices present disadvantages, such as cross-contamination risks, increased paramedical time for equipment management, and a risk of breakage, which can inflate costs. <h3>Conclusion and Relevance</h3> Our study revealed that RRH remains, to this day, a more economical solution than SUH, especially since the costs related to supply chain management were not factored in. However, the growing use of single-use devices could lead to a reduction in their cost in the coming years. As a result, an investment request for RRH has been made. Nonetheless, it would be worthwhile to repeat this study in the future to observe the evolution of costs. <h3>References and/or Acknowledgements</h3> <h3>Conflict of Interest</h3> No conflict of interest