{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04374678332475553, 'fraction_numerical': 0.030365414307771486, 'mean_word_length': 4.926829268292683, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Cost-benefit analysis of intraoperative 3D imaging].

BACKGROUND
With intraoperative 3D imaging, inevitable corrections may be done already during the operation, and a second procedure can be avoided. The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-benefit analysis during the first year of intraoperative 3D application in order to provide a cost transparency for the surgeon within the current DRG system.


METHODS
On the basis of internal data and the literature, the annual operating costs of the ISO-C(3D) were calculated at 27,940 euros (purchase price, depreciation, maintenance, repair), the costs of an average revision as a secondary operation at 2,385 euros (costs avoided with the ISO-C(3D), Siremobil, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), and the dynamic costs of an intraoperative 3D scan were averaged to 131.08 euros (draping, additional time, personnel).


RESULTS
In the year 2003 intraoperative 3D scanning was done in 126 patients, and intraoperative revision was performed in 24 (19%) due to the additional intraoperative 3D information provided by the Siremobil. In 11 (8.7%) patients the implant position was corrected and in 13 (10.3%) patients the reduction was improved. Taking only fixed costs into consideration, 29,311.52 euros could be saved, and when fixed and dynamic costs are taken into account 12,795.44 euros could be saved. Since the parameters for each hospital are different, the following formula for an individual computation is suitable. For the calculation of the cost the following mathematical relationship results: (annual fixed costs) + (costs per scan x number of cases) - (revision costs x revision rate [p]) x number of cases [N]) = 0.


DISCUSSION
Although the costs of an ISO-C(3D) are considerably high, an economic benefit can also accrue with frequent application and high rates of avoided revision. However, if the rate of avoided revision adds up to only 5%, a substantial deficit may result.