By using the activity-based cost/management (ABC/M) system we computed and compared costs needed for laparoscopic tubal sterilization (LTS) and Essure hysteroscopic tubal occlusion (EHTO). We found that total health costs related to consultation and presurgery did not differ between LTS and EHTO; EHTO has low recovery unit costs but is more costly for the operating theater, mainly due to Essure microinserts. (Fertil Steril (R) 2009;91:1499-502. (C)2009 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)
Franchini, M., Cianferoni, L., Lippi, G., Calonaci, F., Calzolari, S., Mazzini, M., et al. (2009). Tubal sterilization by laparoscopy or hysteroscopy: which is the most cost-effective procedure?. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 91(4), 1499-1502 [10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.027].
Tubal sterilization by laparoscopy or hysteroscopy: which is the most cost-effective procedure?
CALONACI, F.;FLORIO, P.
2009-01-01
Abstract
By using the activity-based cost/management (ABC/M) system we computed and compared costs needed for laparoscopic tubal sterilization (LTS) and Essure hysteroscopic tubal occlusion (EHTO). We found that total health costs related to consultation and presurgery did not differ between LTS and EHTO; EHTO has low recovery unit costs but is more costly for the operating theater, mainly due to Essure microinserts. (Fertil Steril (R) 2009;91:1499-502. (C)2009 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)
| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
140 Fertil Steril Tubal Sterilization 2009.pdf
non disponibili
Tipologia:
Post-print
Licenza:
NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione
76.58 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
76.58 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/11365/4017
Attenzione
Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo