Systematic review of reusable versus disposable laparoscopic instruments: costs and safety

Siu, Joey; Hill, Andrew; MacCormick, Andrew D.

doi:10.1111/ans.13856

Cited by 60 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(92 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5 Similar case studies have shown that reusable operating room linens, surgical packs, and towels provide significant cost savings compared to disposable alternatives. 1,[6][7][8] The evaluation of the comfort of isolation gowns is complex and involves human perception. Although individual features of isolation gowns have been found to affect hospital staff and visitor compliance, whether a gown is reusable or disposable has been found to have little to no impact on compliance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental considerations in the selection of isolation gowns: A life cycle assessment of reusable and disposable alternatives

Vozzola¹,

Overcash²,

Griffing³

2018

American Journal of Infection Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental considerations in the selection of isolation gowns: A life cycle assessment of reusable and disposable alternatives

Vozzola¹,

Overcash²,

Griffing³

2018

American Journal of Infection Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is vital to have the instruments in good condition and the correct technology to carry out the procedures successfully. The correct use of disposable or reusable devices is fundamental, and their evaluation of cost-effectiveness according to the characteristics of the institution 15 . The control and periodic review of the systems used (for example: the quality of the image provided by the monitor during a laparoscopy, the pressure and flow offered by the pneumoperitoneum system, or the power of the electrocautery, among other details), are as important as the surgeon’s skill in carrying out the operation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stages and Factors of the “Perioperative Process”: Points in Common With the Aeronautical Industry

Davrieux

Palermo

Serra

et al. 2019

ABCD, arq. bras. cir. dig.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The aeronautical industry is one of the disciplines that most use control systems. Its purpose is to avoid accidents and return safer flights. The flight of an airplane, from its takeoff to its landing is a process divided into stages under strict control. A surgical procedure has the same characteristics. We try to identify and develop the stages of the surgical process using the experience of the aviation industry in order to optimize the results and reduce surgical complications. Aim:To identify and develop the stages of the surgical process so that they could be applied to surgery departments. Methods:A search, review and bibliographic analysis of the application of aeronautical control and safety to medical practice in general and to surgery, in particular, were carried out. Results:Surgical process comprises the perioperative period. It is composed of Preoperative Stage (it is divided into 2 “sub-steps”: hospital admission and control of preoperative studies) Operative Stage (it is divided into 3 “sub-steps”: anesthetic induction, surgery, and anesthetic recovery) and Postoperative Stage (it is divided into 2 “sub-steps”: control during hospitalization and ambulatory control). Two checkpoints must be developed. Checkpoint #1 would be located between the preoperative and operative stages, and checkpoint #2 would be located between the operative and postoperative stages. Surgical factors are surgeons, instrumental and technology, anesthesiology and operating room environment. Conclusion:It is possible and necessary to develop a systematic surgical procedure. Its application in the department of surgery could optimize the results and reduce the complications and errors related to daily practice.

show abstract

“…Moreover, traditional reusable scopes are often associated high maintenance costs, expensive sterilization process, and risks of transmission of diseases such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob DOI: 10.22374/jeleuv1i1. 5 disease. To overcome these barriers, and to provide a simpler and more straightforward solution, Coloplast ® (Humlebaek, Denmark) has developed Isiris α™ which is a single-use, disposable 16Ch flexible digital video flexible cystoscope with an integrated stent grasper (Figure 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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

Systematic review of reusable versus disposable laparoscopic instruments: costs and safety

Abstract: Further examination of cost comparisons between disposable and reusable instruments is necessary while externalized environmental costs, instrument function and safety are also important to consider in future studies.

Cited by 60 publications

References 20 publications

Environmental considerations in the selection of isolation gowns: A life cycle assessment of reusable and disposable alternatives

Environmental considerations in the selection of isolation gowns: A life cycle assessment of reusable and disposable alternatives

Stages and Factors of the “Perioperative Process”: Points in Common With the Aeronautical Industry

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About