Integrated operating rooms allow for surgical staff to control all relevant equipment from the sterile field as different systems/technologies are functionally linked through a single touchpad. Thereby it potentially reduces inappropriate workflow and saves time. This study compared resource use and costs of the integrated operating room (IOR) and conventional operating room (COR).

METHODS

Surgical departments with an IOR and COR that performed comparable surgeries were identified to be included in the study. A hospital perspective was applied to compare resource use and costs of the two operating rooms (OR). Field studies and unstructured interviews were conducted to identify activities and resources that varied in the OR set-up. Time consumption during identified procedures was extracted from the clinical system at the hospital. Independent t-test was used to estimate the statistical difference in mean time between the two alternatives. Technology costs were estimated based on procurement data for the past 3 years at the hospital. Costs common to both IOR and the COR were not included.

RESULTS

The department of heart, lung and vascular surgery and the department of gastrointestinal surgery at Aarhus University Hospital in Central Denmark Region were included. During the study period a total of 1,192 surgeries of selected types were performed in the ORs. We found no statistically significant differences in procedure time or staff cost between IOR and COR. The cost analysis revealed incremental costs of an IOR varying from investment costs of 93,290 EUR corresponding to an equivalent annual cost of 11,909 EUR for the simplest solution to investment costs of 151,007 EUR corresponding to an equivalent annual cost of 19,483 EUR for a more comprehensive solution.

CONCLUSIONS

The study found no difference in procedure time or staff costs between the IOR and the COR. The IOR was associated with varying incremental costs dependent of the integrated solution.