Masques laryngés à usage unique vs réutilisable : une étude de minimisation de coûts

Soulias, M.; Martin, Lizabeth D.; Garnier, Nathalie; Juniot, A.; Aho, Lauri; Freysz, M.

doi:10.1016/j.annfar.2006.03.005

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Advantages of disposables are a lower risk of infection. 17 Conclusions of this study can be extrapolated to sets that are fabricated from comparable materials and resources, such as a surgical suture sets used in the delivery rooms. Furthermore, results of this study are generalisable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of delivery instruments on the environment: A life cycle assessment

van Zanten,

Tensen,

Snijder

et al. 2024

Repro Female Child Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo determine a break‐even point in the carbon footprint of disposable and reusable instrument sets used in the delivery room. This can aid hospitals in making sustainable choices.MethodsObservational study conducted in a university hospital with an obstetric care centre. The study used life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare a reusable (minimal 500 times use) with a disposable instrumental set (single use). LCA quantifies the environmental impact of products over their entire life cycle. The contribution to climate change (i.e., carbon footprint) was used as the environmental indicator [in kg CO2 equivalent (eq.)]. Primary outcome was to determine a ‘break‐even point’: the number of uses at which the carbon footprint of the two sets was similar. Secondary outcomes: (1) ‘worst case scenario’, in which both sets are only used once; (2) ‘scenario of 500 deliveries’ and (3) annual carbon footprint reduction when switching to the set with the lowest environmental impact.ResultsAfter ≥3 times use, the carbon footprint of the reusable set becomes lower than the disposable set. When both sets are used only once, the reusable set had a higher impact on the environment (1.2 kg CO2 eq. difference). In case of using both sets during 500 deliveries, the difference in kg CO2 eq. was 400 kg CO2 eq., corresponding with a 2.3 times lower environmental impact in favour of the reusable set and a reduction of about 1800 kg CO2 eq. per year.ConclusionsDisposable instrumental sets used in the delivery room have a higher impact on the environment compared to reusable sets.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examples of these alternative options could be: limiting transport of produced instruments, limiting wrapping and separately packaging of instruments that are used in fewer cases. Advantages of disposables are a lower risk of infection 17 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of delivery instruments on the environment: A life cycle assessment

van Zanten,

Tensen,

Snijder

et al. 2024

Repro Female Child Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the cost effectiveness of such single-use, disposable medical instrument and endoscopes remains controversial and debatable. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost Analysis and Service Delivery on Using Isiris α™ to Remove Ureteric Stents

Phan¹,

Cobley

Mahmalji

2018

Journal of Endoluminal Endourology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Isiris α™ (Coloplast®) is an innovative single-use disposable flexible cystoscope with an integrated ureteric stent grasper designed specifically to remove ureteric stents. It allows clinicians to remove ureteric stents easily on the wards or in clinics without the need of arranging a routine and dedicated flexible cystoscopy appointment for patients. We evaluated Isiris α’s practical use and cost analysis against traditional reusable endoscopes. Method We compared the cost of removing ureteric stents using Isiris α™ in 10 patients prospectively versus traditional flexible cystoscopes in 10 patients retrospectively. The costs of the equipment, medications, reprocess machines, and utility costs were consulted from the relevant departments and companies. As for labour cost, we have sourced British Medical Association (BMA) and Royal College of Nursing (RCN) websites. Results From our study, it costs £260.65 and £123.41 on average to remove a ureteric stent using Isiris α™ and traditional flexible cystoscope respectively (p<0.001). Stent removal in the endoscopy department was delayed in 60% of patients, on average 6.4 days, compared to 0% of patients using Isiris α™ (p = 0.048). Conclusion Although Isiris α™ is shown to be a more expensive option to remove ureteric stents based on our analysis, it still provides clinicians flexibility and ease in removing ureteric stents in the outpatient clinic, reducing the pressure and demand for dedicated flexible cystoscopy slots in the endoscopy department.

show abstract

“…Soulias et al [10] ont dé montré l'inté rêt é conomique d'un dispositif à usage unique en comparaison avec le dispositif ré utilisable. Dans l'é tude de Macario et al [11], le ML pré sentait un inté rêt é conomique face à l'intubation traché ale en chirurgie ambulatoire.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified