Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 10, pp 4310–4313 | Cite as

Reprocessed single-use devices in laparoscopy: assessment of cost, environmental impact, and patient safety

  • David RentonEmail author
  • Peter Denk
  • Oliver Varban
SAGES Technology and Value Assessments Committee Review
  • 268 Downloads

United States health care spending rose 4.3% in 2016 to reach $3.2 trillion dollars, or 17.9% of the GDP [1]. It is predicted that, without intervention, this will reach 20% by 2025. In addition, it has been recently calculated that the healthcare industry in the United States accounts for nearly 10% of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions [2]. One of the most important factors contributing to these escalating trends is the fact that many devices used in healthcare are intended for single patient use and are subsequently disposed resulting in significant waste as well as cost. Such devices are as ubiquitous as they are necessary for patient care and range from blood pressure cuffs to laparoscopic trocars to cardiac catheterization balloons. In order to curtail rising trends in cost and waste, the concept of using reprocess single-use devices (RSUD) was introduced in the year 2000. However, given the ethical implications of reusing medical devices on multiple patients, it is...

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Oliver Varban—Salary Support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for leadership and participation roles. David Renton and Peter Denk have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Sherman JD, Hopf HW (2018) Balancing infection control and environmental protection as a matter of patient safety: the case of laryngoscope handles. Anesth Analg.  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002759 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    FDA (2015) Reprocessing medical devices in health care settings: validation methods and labeling. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm253010.pdf
  4. 4.
    CDC (2008) Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities. https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/guidelines/disinfection-guidelines.pdf
  5. 5.
    Sherman JD, Raibley LA, Eckelman MJ (2018) Life cycle assessment and costing methods for device procurement: comparing reusable and single-use disposable laryngoscopes. Anesth Analg.  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002683 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaplan S, Sadler B, Little K, Franz C, Orris P (2012) Can sustainable hospitals help bend the health care cost curve. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 29:1–14Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    GAO (2008) Reprocessed single use medical devices. Report to the committee on oversight and government reform, United States Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gärtner D, Münz K, Hückelheim E, Hesse U (2008) Ultrasound scissors: new single-use instruments vs. resterilised single-use instruments—a prospective randomised study. GMS Krankenhhyg Interdiszip 3:Doc20PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mues AC, Haramis G, Casazza C, Okhunov Z, Badani KK, Landman J (2010) Prospective randomized single-blinded in vitro and ex vivo evaluation of new and reprocessed laparoscopic trocars. J Am Coll Surg 211:738–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ralph S. Carungi DO, FACS, FACOS; Irwin S, Simon MD, FACS, ESQ (2010) Safety and performance evaluation of remanufactured harmonic® scalpels. http://amdr.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/White-Paper-Safety-and-Performance-Eval-of-Remfd-Harmonic-Scalpels-1.pdf
  11. 11.
    Weld KJ, Dryer S, Hruby G, Ames CD, Venkatesh R, Matthews BD, Landman J (2006) Comparison of mechanical and in vivo performance of new and reprocessed harmonic scalpels. Urology 67:898–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yung E, Gagner M, Pomp A, Dakin G, Milone L, Strain G (2010) Cost comparison of reusable and single-use ultrasonic shears for laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 20:512–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arregui ME (2000) Is it possible to resterilize disposable laparoscopy trocars in a hospital setting? Editorial point and counterpoint. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 10:62–64Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chan AC, Ip M, Koehler A, Crisp B, Tam JS, Chung SC (2000) Is it safe to reuse disposable laparoscopic trocars? An in vitro testing. Surg Endosc 14:1042–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ulualp KM, Hamzaoglu I, Ulgen SK, Sahin DA, Saribas S, Ozturk R, Cebeci H (2000) Is it possible to resterilize disposable laparoscopy trocars in a hospital setting. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 10:59–62 (Discussion 62)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    dos Santos VS, Zilberstein B, Possari JF, dos Santos MA, Quintanilha AG, Ribeiro U (2008) Single-use trocar: is it possible to reprocess it after the first use. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 18:464–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cassera MA, Goers TA, Spaun GO, Swanström LL (2011) Efficacy of using a novel endoscopic lens cleaning device: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Innov 18:150–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kelty CJ, Super PA, Stoddard CJ (2000) The driving force in trocar insertion: a comparison between disposable and reusable trocars. Surg Endosc 14:1045–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Colak T, Ersoz G, Akca T, Kanik A, Aydin S (2004) Efficacy and safety of reuse of disposable laparoscopic instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 18:727–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Montero PN, Robinson TN, Weaver JS, Stiegmann GV (2010) Insulation failure in laparoscopic instruments. Surg Endosc 24:462–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Espada M, Munoz R, Noble BN, Magrina JF (2011) Insulation failure in robotic and laparoscopic instrumentation: a prospective evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205:121, e1–e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tixier F, Garçon M, Rochefort F, Corvaisier S (2016) Insulation failure in electrosurgery instrumentation: a prospective evaluation. Surg Endosc 30:4995–5001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fuchshuber P, Schwaitzberg S, Jones D, Jones SB, Feldman L, Munro M, Robinson T, Purcell-Jackson G, Mikami D, Madani A, Brunt M, Dunkin B, Gugliemi C, Groah L, Lim R, Mischna J, Voyles CR (2017) The SAGES fundamental use of surgical energy program (FUSE): history, development, and purpose. Surg Endosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5933-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lester BR, Miller K, Boers A, Harris DC, Gamble WG (2010) Comparison of in vivo clinical performance and shaft temperature and in vitro tissue temperature and transection times between new and reprocessed harmonic scalpels. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20:e150–e159CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.GI Surgical Specialists, PLLCFort MyersUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations