Thibault Reynier1, Mathilde Berahou2, Pierre Albaladejo3, Hélène Beloeil2. 1. Grenoble-Alpes University Hospital, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, F-38000 Grenoble, France. 2. University of Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, CIC 1414, COSS U1242, Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, F-35000 Rennes, France. 3. Grenoble-Alpes University Hospital, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, F-38000 Grenoble, France. Electronic address: PAlbaladejo@chu-grenoble.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Discuss if the use of disposable or reusable medical devices leads to a difference in terms of hospital-acquired infection or bacterial contamination. Determine which solution is less expensive and has less environmental impact in terms of carbon footprint, energy and water consumption and amount of waste. METHODS: We carried out a narrative review. Articles published in English and French from January 2000 to April 2020 were identified from PubMed. RESULTS: We retrieved 81 articles, including 12 randomised controlled trial, 21 literature reviews, 13 descriptive studies, 6 experimental studies, 9 life-cycle studies, 6 cohort studies, 2 meta-analysis, 4 case reports and 8 other studies. It appears that pathogen transmission in the anaesthesia work area is mainly due to the lack of hand hygiene among the anaesthesia team. The benefit of single-use devices on infectious risk is based on weak scientific arguments, while reusable devices have benefits in terms of costs, water consumption, energy consumption, waste, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. CONCLUSION: Disposable medical devices and attire in the operating theatre do not mitigate the infectious risk to the patients but have a greater environmental, financial and social impact than the reusable ones. This study is the first step towards recommendations for more environmental-friendly practices in the operating theatre.
OBJECTIVE: Discuss if the use of disposable or reusable medical devices leads to a difference in terms of hospital-acquired infection or bacterial contamination. Determine which solution is less expensive and has less environmental impact in terms of carbon footprint, energy and water consumption and amount of waste. METHODS: We carried out a narrative review. Articles published in English and French from January 2000 to April 2020 were identified from PubMed. RESULTS: We retrieved 81 articles, including 12 randomised controlled trial, 21 literature reviews, 13 descriptive studies, 6 experimental studies, 9 life-cycle studies, 6 cohort studies, 2 meta-analysis, 4 case reports and 8 other studies. It appears that pathogen transmission in the anaesthesia work area is mainly due to the lack of hand hygiene among the anaesthesia team. The benefit of single-use devices on infectious risk is based on weak scientific arguments, while reusable devices have benefits in terms of costs, water consumption, energy consumption, waste, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. CONCLUSION: Disposable medical devices and attire in the operating theatre do not mitigate the infectious risk to the patients but have a greater environmental, financial and social impact than the reusable ones. This study is the first step towards recommendations for more environmental-friendly practices in the operating theatre.