Utilization Fraction of Reduction Mammoplasty Instrument Sets: Cost Savings and Efficiency Opportunities.

[PURPOSE] Healthcare spending will account for 20% of US gross domestic product by 2028. One strategy to address rising costs is evaluating the utilization fraction (UF) of surgical trays. Utilization fraction averages between 13% and 27% among surgical specialties, yet data from plastic surgery are lacking.

[METHODS] This prospective observational study assessed UF of surgical instruments in all reduction mammoplasty performed at 2 sites in the same healthcare system over a 6-month period. Site 1 is a tertiary hospital and site 2, an outpatient surgical center. Utilization fraction was calculated as percent fraction of used, or if operating surgeons touched them, to opened instruments. A new surgical tray was created by removing instruments not used in 20% of cases. Reprocessing costs and savings were calculated using published reprocessing figures of $0.10 to $0.51 per instrument. Descriptive statistics and parametric variables reported as mean ± standard deviation. Unpaired Student t test was performed to determine statistical significance of findings ( P < 0.05).

[RESULTS] Four plastic surgeons performed 37 procedures, 11 at site 1 and 26 at site 2. At site 1, 112 instruments are opened in one tray with 53 unique and 59 duplicates. At site 2, 155 instruments are opened in 2 trays with 58 unique, 20 shared, and 77 duplicates. Instrument user did not vary by site ( P = 0.446), with 19 ± 3 instruments and 17 ± 3 instruments used per case; however, UF varied significantly ( P < 0.0001) with average UF of 16.6% ± 2.8% and 11.5% ± 1.7% at sites 1 and 2, respectively. Estimated reprocessing costs per case are currently $11.20 to $57.12 at site 1 and $15.50 to $79.05 at site 2, with unused instruments accounting for $9.34 to 47.64 and $13.72 to $69.96, respectively. The new surgical tray includes 32 instruments, 18 unique and 14 duplicates, with estimated reprocessing cost of $3.20 to $16.32 per case. Adoption would reduce reprocessing costs by approximately $8.00 to $40.80 and $12.30 to $62.73 per case at sites 1 and 2, respectively.

[CONCLUSIONS] Despite studying a single, but common, plastic surgery procedure, our findings reveal consistency in excessive appropriation of instruments between sites with values similar to those in the literature. These findings exemplify a cost-saving opportunity at our institution and chance to optimize UF for other high-volume plastic surgery procedures.