Literature DB >> 15580444

Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

S Adler1, M Scherrer, K D Rückauer, F D Daschner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The economic and environmental effects were compared between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Special consideration was given to the processing of reusable instruments in the Miele G 7736 CD MCU washer disinfector and the resultant cost of sterilization.
METHODS: The instruments frequently used in their disposable form were identified with the help of surgeons. Thus, of all the instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the disposable and reusable versions of trocars, scissors, and Veress cannula were compared.
RESULTS: For the case examined in this study, the performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with disposable instruments was 19 times more expensive that for reusable instruments. The higher cost of using disposable instruments is primarily attributable to the purchase price of the instruments. The processing of reusable instruments has little significance in terms of cost, whereas the cost for disposing of disposable instruments is the least significant factor. The number of laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed per year does not substantially influence cost. In the authors' opinion, assessment of the environmental consequences shows that reusable instruments are environmentally advantageous.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering the upward pressure of costs in hospitals, disposable instruments should be used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy only if they offer clear advantages over reusable instruments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15580444     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-003-9232-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  7 in total

1.  Reusables may slow rising tide of laparoscopic surgery costs.

Authors:  L Souhrada
Journal:  Mater Manag Health Care       Date:  1993-02

2.  A cost comparison of disposable vs reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  L Demoulin; K Kesteloot; F Penninckx
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  A prospective cost analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  L W Traverso; K Hargrave
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 2.565

4.  Single-use versus reusable laparoscopic surgical instruments: a comparative cost analysis.

Authors:  G N Schaer; O R Koechli; U Haller
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  [Disposable versus reusable instruments in laparoscopic surgery--a controlled study].

Authors:  V Paolucci; B Schaeff; C Gutt; G Morawe; A Encke
Journal:  Zentralbl Chir       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 0.942

6.  Reusable instruments are more cost-effective than disposable instruments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  K N Apelgren; M L Blank; C A Slomski; N S Hadjis
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  [Do costs decide? Disposable or reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy?].

Authors:  R Lefering; H Troidl; B M Ure
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 0.955

  7 in total
  13 in total

1.  Safety-cost trade-offs in medical device reuse: a Markov decision process model.

Authors:  Thomas W Sloan
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2007-02

2.  [Ultrasonic scissors. New vs resterilized instruments].

Authors:  D Gärtner; K Münz; E Hückelheim; U Hesse
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 0.955

3.  Ultrasound scissors: new single-use instruments vs. resterilised single-use instruments - a prospective randomised study.

Authors:  D Gärtner; K Münz; E Hückelheim; U Hesse
Journal:  GMS Krankenhhyg Interdiszip       Date:  2008-09-03

4.  Inventory management of reusable surgical supplies.

Authors:  Adam Diamant; Joseph Milner; Fayez Quereshy; Bo Xu
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2017-03-08

5.  Regional cost analysis for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Pontarelli; Gary G Grinberg; Richard S Isaacs; James P Morris; Olakunle Ajayi; Pandu R Yenumula
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  [Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology using reusable systems].

Authors:  C Schwentner; T Todenhöfer; J Seibold; S Alloussi; M Germann; S Aufderklamm; J Mischinger; A Stenzl; G Gakis
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  Environmental impact of single-use, reusable, and mixed trocar systems used for laparoscopic cholecystectomies.

Authors:  Linn Boberg; Jagdeep Singh; Agneta Montgomery; Peter Bentzer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 3.752

8.  Transumbilical laparoscopically assisted appendectomy in children: high-tech low-budget surgery.

Authors:  S Visnjic
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-12-11       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Laparoscopic appendectomy in a Nigerian teaching hospital.

Authors:  Adewale O Adisa; Olusegun I Alatise; Olukayode A Arowolo; Oladejo O Lawal
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2012 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

10.  Cost effective laparoendoscopic single-site surgery with a reusable platform.

Authors:  C Schwentner; T Todenhöfer; J Seibold; S Alloussi; S Aufderklamm; J Mischinger; A Stenzl; G Gakis
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2013 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.