Frequency and Costs of Echo Endoscope Repairs: Results of a Survey of Endosonographers

Background and Study aims: The need for repair of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) equipment appears to be frequent and expensive. To better quantify the costs associated with echo endoscope failure, a survey of endosonographers was carried out.
Methods: A survey questionnaire concerning echo endoscope damage and repair and consequences of echo endoscope downtime over a 12-month period was sent to members of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy who had cited an interest in EUS.
Results: Responses were received from 56 of 138 institutions where EUS was carried out (41 %). A median of 325 EUS procedures had been carried out in the past year and a median of two endosonographers were employed who used an average of three echo endoscopes. Two-thirds of institutions trained fellows. A total of 225 repairs were reported for leaks (47 %), mechanical failures (33 %), images or optics difficulties (26 %), or other problems (1 %). Mechanical radial-scanning echo endoscopes tended to break, on average, after 68 procedures, while curved linear-array echo endoscopes failed after an average of 107 procedures. Echo endoscope failures led to rescheduling of procedures at three-quarters of institutions. Institutions paid an average of $ 10 534 over 12 months for echo endoscope repairs. The average repair cost per procedure was $ 41. There was an inverse relationship between quantity of procedures and the per-procedure repair rate (P < 0.05).
Conclusions: Direct and indirect costs of echo endoscope repairs are significant. Instrument failures are multifactorial; however instrument complexity, instrument age, and institutional inexperience may contribute to repair costs.

References

• 1 Urayama S, Kozarek R, Raltz S. Evaluation of per-procedure equipment costs in an outpatient endoscopy center.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  44 129-132
• 2 Savides T J, Fisher A H, Gress F G. et al . 1999 ASGE endoscopic ultrasound survey. ASGE ad hoc endoscopic ultrasound committee.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  52 745-750
• 3 Das A, Sivak M V Jr, Chak A. Cervical esophageal perforation during EUS: a national survey.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  53 599-602
• 4 Asch D A, Jedrziewski M K, Christakis N A. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;  50 1129-1136
• 5 Silcock J G, Bramble M G. Open access gastroscopy: second survey of current practice in the United Kingdom.  Gut. 1997;  40 192-195
• 6 Lin O S, Mannava S, Hwang K-L, Triadafilopoulos G. Reasons for current practices in managing Barrett’s esophagus.  Dis Esophagus. 2002;  15 39-45