Search

Introduction: Single-use bronchoscopes have replaced reusable ones in many institutions. This study aimed to evaluate the environmental and financial impacts of both strategies: reusable and single-use bronchoscopes., Material and Methods: We conducted a pragmatic study in a 21-bed polyvalent ICU, in Saint-Brieuc, Bretagne, France. The eco-audit consisted of estimating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, considering the life cycle of each strategy. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to construction, packaging, transport and waste elimination were compared between 2 devices: the reusable bronchoscope, a Pentax® FI-16RBS that was disinfected twice daily; and the single-use bronchoscope, the bronchoflex agile® from TSC., Results: For the reusable bronchoscope, GHG emissions were marginally impacted by the number of bronchoscopies performed (from 185 kg eq.CO 2 per year to 192 kg eq.CO 2 for 10 or 110 bronchoscopies per year). For the reusable device, GHG emissions directly depended on the number of bronchoscopies performed with 3.82 kg eq.CO 2 emitted per bronchoscopy. The breakeven point for the reusable bronchoscope was estimated at 50 bronchoscopies in terms of GHG emissions and 96 bronchoscopies for financial considerations., Conclusion: Considering current practice in our ICU, reusable bronchoscopes have lower GHG emissions when used more than 50 times a year and a lower cost when used more than 96 times a year as compared with single-use bronchoscopes., (Copyright © 2024 Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation (Sfar). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The aim of this study was to follow the instruments' pathways and cost each segment to calculate whether reusable or disposable ophthalmic instruments offer better value for money for intravitreal injections., Methods: The cycles and costs of reusable and single-use disposable instruments used for intravitreal injections were mapped out, including purchase costs, transport to and from the place of use, opening and disposal, sterilisation, replacement, salary costs of staff involved, etc. results: The cost of using reusable instruments for intravitreal injections (NZ$29.00) was lower than the cost of using disposable instruments ($30.51) by $1.51 per patient., Conclusions: Intravitreal injections performed with reusable instruments offer better value for money than when performed with disposable instruments. This equates to a beneficial financial saving just for this one low-complexity case. Such savings can multiply significantly when considering the instruments used in a wider variety of ophthalmic procedures. There are of course trade-offs between safety, quality, cost and sustainability., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing/conflicts of interest. Originally presented as a video poster at the 2022 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists New Zealand Branch Annual Scientific Meeting., (© PMA.)

Introduction: Orthopaedic surgery is culpable, in part, for the excessive carbon emissions in health care partly due to the utilization of disposable instrumentation in most procedures, such as rotator cuff repair (RCR). To address growing concerns about hospital waste, some have considered replacing disposable instrumentation with reusable instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost and carbon footprint of waste disposal of RCR kits that use disposable instrumentation compared with reusable instrumentation., Methods: The mass of the necessary materials and their packaging to complete a four-anchor RCR from four medical device companies that use disposable instrumentation and one that uses reusable instrumentation were recorded. Using the cost of medical waste disposal at our institution ($0.14 per kilogram) and reported values from the literature for carbon emissions produced from the low-temperature incineration of noninfectious waste (249 kgCO 2 e/t) and infectious waste (569 kgCO 2 e/t), we estimated the waste management cost and carbon footprint of waste disposal produced per RCR kit., Results: The disposable systems of four commercial medical device companies had 783%, 570%, 1,051%, and 478%, respectively, greater mass and waste costs when compared with the reusable system. The cost of waste disposal for the reusable instrumentation system costs on average $0.14 less than the disposable instrumentation systems. The estimated contribution to the overall carbon footprint produced from the disposal of a RCR kit that uses reusable instrumentation was on average 0.37 kg CO2e less than the disposable instrumentation systems., Conclusion: According to our analysis, reusable instrumentation in four-anchor RCR leads to decreased waste and waste disposal costs and lower carbon emissions from waste disposal. Additional research should be done to assess the net benefit reusable systems may have on hospitals and the effect this may have on a long-term decrease in carbon footprint., Level of Evidence: Level II., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Background and Aims: Duodenoscopes with single-use end caps were introduced to minimize infection risk, but they are unstudied in pediatrics., Methods: We collected clinical data and endoscopists' evaluations of duodenoscopes with single-use end caps versus reusable duodenoscopes over 18 months., Results: A total of 106 ERCPs were performed for patients aged 1 to 18 (mean, 14.2) years. Forty-six involved single-use end caps, with 9 requiring crossover to reusable duodenoscopes. ERCPs involving single-use end caps resulted in more instances of mucosal trauma (10 vs 0; P < .05) and post-ERCP pancreatitis (4 vs 1; P < .05) and accounted for 8 of 9 ERCPs requiring advanced cannulation techniques. No post-ERCP infections occurred. Reported challenges included single-use end cap stiffness and difficulty with their alignment for cannulation., Conclusions: We report difficulty with advancement, greater reliance on advanced cannulation techniques, and higher rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis when using duodenoscopes with single-use end caps in pediatric ERCP. This area warrants further study., Competing Interests: Disclosure All authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The operating room has been identified as one of the primary contributors to waste and energy expenditure in the health care system. The primary objective of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of single-use device reprocessing and report the cost savings, waste diversion, and reduction in carbon emissions. Data was collected from January 2021 to April 2023. Medline collected the data for analysis and converted it from an Excel file format to SPSS (Version 27) for analysis. Descriptive frequencies were used for data analysis. We found a mean monthly cost savings of $16,051.68 and a mean 700.68 pounds of waste a month diverted, resulting in an estimated yearly saving of $2354.29 in disposal costs and a reduction of 1112.65 CO2e emissions per month. This program has made significant contributions to cost savings and environmental efforts., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Operating room (OR) expenditures and waste generation are a priority, with several professional societies recommending the use of reprocessed or reusable equipment where feasible. The aim of this analysis was to compare single-use pulse oximetry sensor stickers ("single-use stickers") versus reusable pulse oximetry sensor clips ("reusable clips") in terms of annual cost savings and waste generation across all ORs nationally., Methods: This study did not involve patient data or research on human subjects. As such, it did not meet the requirements for institutional review board approval. An economic model was used to compare the relative costs and waste generation from using single-use stickers versus reusable clips. This model took into account: (1) the relative prices of single-use stickers and reusable clips, (2) the number of surgeries and ORs nationwide, (3) the workload burden of cleaning the reusable clips, and (4) the costs of capital for single-use stickers and reusable clips. In addition, we also estimated differences in waste production based on the raw weight plus unit packaging of single-use stickers and reusable clips that would be disposed of over the course of the year, without any recycling interventions. Estimated savings were rounded to the nearest $0.1 million., Results: The national net annual savings of transitioning from single-use stickers to reusable clips in all ORs ranged from $510.5 million (conservative state) to $519.3 million (favorable state). Variability in savings estimates is driven by scenario planning for replacement rate of reusable clips, workload burden of cleaning (ranging from an additional expense of $618k versus a cost savings of $309k), and cost of capital-interest gained on investment of capital that is freed up by the monetary savings of a transition to reusable clips contributes between $541k (low-interest rates of 2.85%) and $1.3 million (high-interest rates of 7.08%). The annual waste that could be diverted from landfill by transitioning to reusable clips was found to be between 587 tons (conservative state) up to 589 tons (favorable state). If institutions need to purchase new vendor monitors or cables to make the transition, that may increase the 1-time capital disbursement., Conclusions: Using reusable clips versus single-use stickers across all ORs nationally would result in appreciable annual cost savings and waste generation reduction impact. As both single-use stickers and reusable clips are equally accurate and reliable, this cost and waste savings could be instituted without a compromise in clinical care., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article., (Copyright © 2024 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

Objective: Endoscopes are an essential tool in the diagnosis, screening, and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration issued a news release, recommending that duodenoscope manufacturers and health care facilities phase out fully reusable duodenoscopes with fixed endcaps in lieu of duodenoscopes that are either fully disposable or those that contain disposable endcaps. With this study, we systematically reviewed the published literature on single-use disposable gastrointestinal scopes to describe the current state of the literature and provide summary recommendations on the role of disposable gastrointestinal endoscopes., Materials and Methods: For our inclusion criteria, we searched for studies that were published in the year 2015 and afterward. We performed a literature search in PubMed using the keywords, "disposable," "reusable," "choledochoscope," "colonoscope," "duodenoscope," "esophagoscope," "gastroscope," and "sigmoidoscope." After our review, we identified our final article set, including 13 articles relating to disposable scopes, published from 2015 to 2023., Results: In this review, we show 13 articles discussing the infection rate, functionality, safety, and affordability of disposable gastrointestinal scopes in comparison to reusable gastrointestinal scopes. Of the 3 articles that discussed infection rates (by Forbes and colleagues, Ridtitid and colleagues, and Ofosu and colleagues), each demonstrated a decreased risk of infection in disposable gastrointestinal scopes. Functionality was another common theme among these articles. Six articles (by Muthusamy and colleagues, Bang and colleagues, Lisotti and colleagues, Ross and colleagues, Kang and colleagues, and Forbes and colleagues) demonstrated comparable functionality of disposable scopes to reusable scopes. The most reported functionality issue in disposable scopes was decreased camera resolution. Disposable scopes also showed comparable safety profiles compared with reusable scopes. Six articles (by Kalipershad and colleagues, Muthusamy and colleagues, Bang and colleagues, Lisotti and colleagues, Luo and colleagues, and Huynh and colleagues) showed comparable rates of AEs, whereas 1 article (by Ofosu and colleagues) demonstrated increased rates of AEs with disposable scopes. Lastly, a cost analysis was looked at in 3 of the articles. Two articles (by Larsen et al and Ross and colleagues) remarked that further research is needed to understand the cost of disposable scopes, whereas 1 article (by Kang and colleagues) showed a favorable cost analysis., Conclusions: After a review of the literature published since the 2015 Food and Drug Administration safety communication, disposable scopes have been shown to be effective in decreasing infection risks while maintaining similar safety profiles to conventional reusable scopes. However, more research is required to compare disposable and reusable scopes in terms of functionality and cost-effectiveness., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore the data comparing single- vs multi-use catheters for clean intermittent catheterisation (CIC), consider if the widespread use of single-use catheters is warranted given the cost and environmental impact, and put forth ideas for future consideration., Methods: A primary literature review was performed in PubMed over the past 50 years. Studies that performed comparative analysis of single- and multi-use catheters were included in our review. All studies that reported on primary data were narratively summarised., Results: A total of 11 studies were identified that reported on primary data comparing single- and multi-use catheters. There was no appreciable evidence suggesting reusable multi-use catheters were inferior to single-use catheters from an infection or usability standpoint. In addition, the environmental and monetary burden of single-use catheters is significant., Conclusions: The intermittent catheter landscape in the USA has a complex past: defined by policy, shaped by industry, yet characterised by a paucity of data demonstrating superiority of single-use over multi-use catheters. We believe that the aversion to reusable catheters by many patients and healthcare professionals is unwarranted, especially given the cost and environmental impact. Moving forward, better comparative data and more sustainable practices are needed., (© 2024 BJU International.)

Objective: To conduct a comparative cost analysis between single-use and reusable cystoscopes from a national healthcare system perspective and assess the environmental footprint., Methods: Single-center micro-cost analysis of reusable vs single-use cystoscopes used institutional data. The cost breakdown included capital, reprocessing, repair, procedure, and environmental impact expenses. Data collection occurred in 2022, utilizing registered data, observations, and expert opinions. Depreciation was applied over 5 years for reusable cystoscopes and 8 years for the automated endoscope reprocessor. Deterministic sensitivity analyses gauged result robustness to input variations. Lastly, an assessment of the environmental footprint, focusing on water consumption and waste generation, was conducted., Results: Per-procedure cost associated with reusable cystoscopes was €332.46 vs €220.19 associated with single-use, resulting in savings of €112.27. When projecting these costs per procedure with the number of procedures performed in 2022 (1186), comparing the costs of procedures performed in 1 year with reusable endoscopes (€394,295.86) to the costs of the exact number of procedures performed with disposable endoscopes (€261,149.37), a saving of €133,146.49 could be achieved. Additionally, after continuous use of single-use endoscopes, procedures were scheduled every 20 minutes instead of every 30 minutes. This adjustment allowed for 15 daily procedures instead of 10 while maintaining the same shift. This suggests potential advantages in terms of improved organizational impact and reduced waiting lists. Ultimately, the decreased environmental impact favored the adoption of single-use cystoscopes., Conclusion: Our study presents an opportunity for organizational development in response to the evolving external environment, considering user needs, market dynamics, and competition with other facilities., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The objective of this systematic review of the literature is to compare a selection of currently utilized disposable and reusable laparoscopic medical devices in terms of safety (1st criteria), cost and carbon footprint., Material and Methods: A search was carried out on electronic databases for articles published up until 6 May 2022. The eligible works were prospective (randomized or not) or retrospective clinical or medical-economic comparative studies having compared disposable scissors, trocars, and mechanical endoscopic staplers to the same instruments in reusable. Two different independent examiners extracted the relevant data., Results: Among the 2882 articles found, 156 abstracts were retained for examination. After comprehensive analysis concerning the safety and effectiveness of the instruments, we included four articles. A study on trocars highlighted increased vascular complications with disposable instruments, and another study found more perioperative incidents with a hybrid stapler as opposed to a disposable stapler. As regards cost analysis, we included 11 studies, all of which showed significantly higher costs with disposable instruments. The results of the one study on carbon footprints showed that hybrid instruments leave four times less of a carbon footprint than disposable instruments., Conclusion: The literature on the theme remains extremely limited. Our review demonstrated that from a medical and economic standpoint, reusable medical instruments, particularly trocars, presented appreciable advantages. While there exist few data on the ecological impact, those that do exist are unmistakably favorable to reusable instruments., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Since the industrial revolution, the rapid growth and development of global industries have depended largely upon the utilization of coal-derived chemicals, and more recently, the utilization of petroleum-based chemicals. These developments have followed a linear economy model (produce, consume, and dispose). As the world is facing a serious threat from the climate change crisis, a more sustainable solution for manufacturing, i.e., circular economy in which waste from the same or different industries can be used as feedstocks or resources for production offers an attractive industrial/business model. In nature, biological systems, i.e., microorganisms routinely use their enzymes and metabolic pathways to convert organic and inorganic wastes to synthesize biochemicals and energy required for their growth. Therefore, an understanding of how selected enzymes convert biobased feedstocks into special (bio)chemicals serves as an important basis from which to build on for applications in biocatalysis, metabolic engineering, and synthetic biology to enable biobased processes that are greener and cleaner for the environment. This review article highlights the current state of knowledge regarding the enzymatic reactions used in converting biobased wastes (lignocellulosic biomass, sugar, phenolic acid, triglyceride, fatty acid, and glycerol) and greenhouse gases (CO 2 and CH 4 ) into value-added products and discusses the current progress made in their metabolic engineering. The commercial aspects and life cycle assessment of products from enzymatic and metabolic engineering are also discussed. Continued development in the field of metabolic engineering would offer diversified solutions which are sustainable and renewable for manufacturing valuable chemicals.

The Covid-19 pandemic led to threatening shortages in healthcare of medical products such as face masks. Due to this major impact on our healthcare society an initiative was conducted between March and July 2020 for reprocessing of face masks from 19 different hospitals. This exceptional opportunity was used to study the costs impact and the carbon footprint of reprocessed face masks relative to new disposable face masks. The aim of this study is to conduct a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to assess and compare the climate change impact of disposed versus reprocessed face masks. In total 18.166 high quality medical FFP2 face masks were reprocessed through steam sterilization between March and July 2020. Greenhouse gas emissions during production, transport, sterilization and end-of-life processes were assessed. The background life cycle inventory data were retrieved from the ecoinvent database. The life cycle impact assessment method ReCiPe was used to translate emissions into climate change impact. The cost analysis is based on actual sterilization as well as associated costs compared to the prices of new disposable face masks. A Monte Carlo sampling was used to propagate the uncertainty of different inputs to the LCA results. The carbon footprint appears to be 58% lower for face masks which were reused for five times compared to new face masks which were used for one time only. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the loading capacity of the autoclave and rejection rate of face masks has a large influence on the carbon footprint. The estimated cost price of a reprocessed mask was €1.40 against €1.55. The Life Cycle Assessment demonstrates that reprocessed FFP2 face masks from a circular economy perspective have a lower climate change impact on the carbon footprint than new face masks. For policymakers it is important to realize that the carbon footprint of medical products such as face masks may be reduced by means of circular economy strategies. This study demonstrated a lower climate change impact and lower costs when reprocessing and reusing disposable face masks for five times. Therefore, this study may serve as an inspiration for investigating reprocessing of other medical products that may become scarce. Finally, this study advocates that circular design engineering principles should be taken into account when designing medical devices. This will lead to more sustainable products that have a lower carbon footprint and may be manufactured at lower costs., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Surgical procedures account for 50% of hospital revenue and ∼60% of operating costs. On average, <20% of surgical instruments will be used during a case, and the expense for resterilization and assembly of instrument trays ranges from $0.51 to $3.01 per instrument. Given the complexity of the surgical service supply chain, physician preferences, and variation of procedures, a reduction of surgical cost has been extremely difficult and often ill-defined. A data-driven approach to instrument tray optimization has implications for efficiency and cost savings in sterile processing, including reductions in tray assembly time and instrument repurchase, repair, and avoidable depreciation., Methods: During a 3-month period, vascular surgery cases were monitored using a cloud-based technology product (OpFlow, Operative Flow Technologies, Raleigh, NC) as a part of a hospital-wide project. Given the diversity of the cases evaluated, we focused on two main vascular surgery trays: vascular and aortic. An assessment was performed to evaluate the exact instruments used by the operating surgeons across a variety of cases. The vascular tray contained 131 instruments and was used for the vast majority of vascular cases, and the aortic tray contained 152 instruments. Actual instrument usage data were collected, a review and analysis performed, and the trays optimized., Results: During the 3-month period, 168 vascular surgery cases were evaluated across six surgeons. On average, the instrument usage per tray was 30 of 131 instruments (22.9%) for the vascular tray and 19 of 152 (12.5%) for the aortic tray. After review, 45.8% of the instruments were removed from the vascular tray and 62.5% from the aortic tray, for 1255 instruments removed from the versions of both trays. An audit was performed after the removal of instruments, which showed that none of the removed instruments had required reinstatement. The instrument reduction from these two trays alone yielded an estimated costs savings of $97,781 for repurchase and $97,444 in annual resterilization savings. Annually, the removal of the instruments is projected to save 316.2 hours of personnel time. The time required for operating room table setup decreased from a mean of 7:44 to 5:02 minutes for the vascular tray (P < .0001) and from 8:53 to 4:56 minutes for the aortic tray (P < .0001)., Conclusions: Given increasing cost constraints in healthcare, sterile processing remains an untapped resource for surgical expense reduction. A comprehensive data analytics solution provided the ability to make informed decisions in tray management that otherwise could not be reliably performed., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the inadequacy of the U.S. healthcare system to deliver timely and resilient care. According to the American Hospital Association, the pandemic has created a $202 billion loss across the healthcare industry, forcing health care systems to lay off workers and making hospitals scramble to minimize supply chain costs. However, as the demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) grows, hospitals have sacrificed sustainable solutions for disposable options that, although convenient, will exacerbate supply strains, financial burden, and waste. We advocate for reusable gowns as a means to lower health care costs, address climate change, and improve resilience while preserving the safety of health care workers. Reusable gowns' polyester material provides comparable capacity to reduce microbial cross-transmission and liquid penetration. In addition, previous hospitals have reported a 50% cost reduction in gown expenditures after adopting reusable gowns; given the current 2000% price increase in isolation gowns during COVID-19, reusable gown use will build both healthcare resilience and security from price fluctuations. Finally, with the United States' medical waste stream worsening, reusable isolation gowns show promising reductions in energy and water use, solid waste, and carbon footprint. The gowns are shown to withstand laundering 75-100 times in contrast to the single-use disposable gown. The circumstances of the pandemic forewarn the need to shift our single-use PPE practices to standardized reusable applications. Ultimately, sustainable forms of protective equipment can help us prepare for future crises that challenge the resilience of the healthcare system., (Copyright © 2020 Baker, Bromley-Dulfano, Chan, Gupta, Herman, Jain, Taylor, Lu, Pannu, Patel and Prunicki.)

Background: Robust personal protective equipment is essential in preventing the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 to head and neck surgeons who are routinely involved in aerosol generating procedures., Objective: This paper describes the collective experience, across 3 institutes, of using a reusable half-face respirator in 72 head and neck surgery cases., Method: Cost analysis was performed to demonstrate the financial implications of using a reusable respirator compared to single-use filtering facepiece code 3 masks., Conclusion: The reusable respirator is a cost-effective alternative to disposable filtering facepiece code 3 respirators. Supplying reusable respirators to individual staff members may increase the likelihood of them having appropriate personal protective equipment during their clinical duties.

Background: The Goldmann applanation tonometer (TAG) is the gold standard for the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP). In paediatric patients this measurement is challenging. The rebound tonometer (TRB) is an easy to use instrument. In the National Ophthalmology Unit (UNO) the tips of the TRB are re-sterilised (TRB RE)., Objective: To evaluate the correlation between TRB with new and re-sterilised tips compared to TAG., Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 25 healthy patients between 8 and 12 years of age, chosen at random, and seen in the UNO outpatients department during 2019. IOPs were measured with TRB using re-sterilized tips and then with a new tip, and finally with TAG., Results: There was a correlation between IOP measured with TAG and IOP measured with TRB (P=.0011). No correlation was found between TAG and TRB RE, or TRB with TRB RE., Conclusions: The TRB can be used in paediatric patients, taking into account that IOP usually overestimates with respect to TAG., (Copyright © 2020 Sociedad Española de Oftalmología. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: RESPIMAT ® re-usable enables patients to re-use the inhaler and its availability therefore reduces the number of inhalers and associated wastage., Objective: The objective of this study was to perform an economic evaluation that incorporates the ecological impact of adopting RESPIMAT re-usable into the healthcare system in Germany., Methods: Inhaler costs and environmental impact over 5 years in Germany in a scenario with RESPIMAT re-usable compared to a scenario without RESPIMAT re-usable were estimated using a budget impact model. The carbon emissions were derived for each treatment pattern considering the whole life cycle (cradle-to-grave) of the inhaler product. The cost of carbon emissions was estimated using a societal cost per ton of carbon emission., Results: By introducing RESPIMAT re-usable in Germany, it was estimated that by 2023, the number of inhalers used would have decreased by 5,748,750 compared to a scenario without RESPIMAT re-usable. In addition, this measure would reduce the environmental burden of inhaler use while at the same time reducing medical cost of inhalers., Conclusions: Adopting RESPIMAT ® re-usable to the national healthcare services may be a cost-saving option, which has the additional benefit of reducing the societal cost of carbon emissions.

The cost effectiveness of reusable vs. single-use flexible bronchoscopy in the peri-operative setting has yet to be determined. We therefore aimed to determine this and hypothesised that single-use flexible bronchoscopes are cost effective compared with reusable flexible bronchoscopes. We conducted a systematic review of the literature, seeking all reports of cross-contamination or infection following reusable bronchoscope use in any clinical setting. We calculated the incidence of these outcomes and then determined the cost per patient of treating clinical consequences of bronchoscope-induced infection. We also performed a micro-costing analysis to quantify the economics of reusable flexible bronchoscopes in the peri-operative setting from a high-throughput tertiary centre. This produced an accurate estimate of the cost per use of reusable flexible bronchoscopes. We then performed a cost effectiveness analysis, combining the data obtained from the systematic review and micro-costing analysis. We included 16 studies, with a reported incidence of cross-contamination or infection of 2.8%. In the micro-costing analysis, the total cost per use of a reusable flexible bronchoscope was calculated to be £249 sterling. The cost per use of a single-use flexible bronchoscope was £220 sterling. The cost effectiveness analysis demonstrated that reusable flexible bronchoscopes have a cost per patient use of £511 sterling due to the costs of treatment of infection. The findings from this study suggest benefits from the use of single-use flexible bronchoscopes in terms of cost effectiveness, cross-contamination and resource utilisation., (© 2019 The Authors. Anaesthesia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists.)

Background: In the setting of tightening health care budgets and capped payments, new strategies are needed to reduce waste while still providing quality and safe care. Transitioning from disposable supplies to reusable options is a viable approach to save money., Objective: To reduce the cost of the largest expense in the Adult Emergency Department's budget by 20% by transiting from disposable to reusable pulse oximetry sensors., Methods: We implemented an interdisciplinary quality improvement project using the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle to reduce supply costs in an urban, academic emergency department with approximately 70 000 patient visits per year., Results: By switching to reusable supplies, we reduced the average cost of providing pulse oximetry readings by 56% and decreased budget estimates for supply acquisition by roughly $30 000 per month., Conclusion: This project represents a successful interdisciplinary approach to significantly reducing a large budgetary line item with concrete cost savings and highlights potential savings within reusable and disposable supply chains.

Objectives: Does a cost-awareness campaign for gynaecologists lead to a change in use and costs of disposable surgical supplies for laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) without increasing hospital utilisation measures (operating room (OR) time or hospital length of stay (LOS))?, Design: Pre-post non-controlled study. The OR database was used to identify relevant cases before and after the cost-awareness intervention, and provided information on quantity of each supply item, operative details and LOS., Setting: Lois Hole Hospital for Women, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada., Participants: 12 laparoscopic trained gynaecologists (7 female, 5 male) participated in both phases of the study. Eligible surgical cases were all LH cases for any indication for women aged ≥18 years. 201 cases were undertaken before the intervention (2011-2013) and 229 cases after the intervention (2016-2017)., Intervention: The cost-awareness intervention for gynaecologists included site meetings and rounds providing information on costs of disposable and reusable instruments, a full day skills lab, OR posters about cost and effectiveness of disposable and reusable surgical supplies and demonstrations of reusable equipment (2015-2016)., Primary Outcome Measure: Disposable supplies costs per case (standardised for 2016 unit costs)., Results: There was a significant (p<0.05) reduction (unadjusted) in disposable supplies cost per case for LH between cases before and after the intervention: from $C1073, SD 281, to $C943 SD 209. Regression analysis found that the adjusted cost per case after the intervention was $C116 lower than before the intervention (95% CI -160 to -71). Neither OR time nor hospital LOS differed significantly between cohorts., Conclusions: Our study suggests that cost-awareness campaigns may be associated with reduction in the cost of surgery for LH. However, many other factors may have contributed to this cost reduction, possibly including other local initiatives to reduce costs and emerging evidence indicating lack of effectiveness of some surgical practices., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To compare the performance and surgical outcomes of two different single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes with a reusable video flexible ureteroscope., Methods: Patients undergoing retrograde flexible ureteroscopy at Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia, were included in this study. Three different flexible ureteroscopes were used in this study: (i) single-use digital LithoVue (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA); (ii) single-use digital PU3022A (Pusen, Zhuhai, China); and (iii) reusable digital URF-V2 (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Visibility and maneuverability was rated on a 5-point Likert scale by the operating surgeon. Operative outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed., Results: A total of 150 patients were included in the present study. Of these, 141 patients had ureteroscopy for stone treatment, four for endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery and five for diagnostic/tumor treatment. There were 55 patients in the LithoVue group, 31 in the PU3022A group and 64 patients in the Olympus URF-V2 group. The URF-V2 group had higher visibility scores than both the single-use scopes and higher maneuverability scores when compared with the PU3022A. The LithoVue had higher visibility and maneuverability scores when compared with the PU3022A. There were no differences in operative time, rates of relook flexible ureteroscopes, scope failure or complication rates observed., Conclusions: Single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes have visibility and maneuverability profiles approaching that of a reusable digital flexible ureteroscope. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes achieve similar clinical outcomes to the more expensive reusable versions., (© 2019 The Japanese Urological Association.)

Purpose: Reusable flexible-ureteroscopes (fURS) require personnel and budget for processing and repairing, whereas single-use fURS were recently developed. After exclusive reusable fURS since 2011, we experienced high repair costs and single-use fURS were therefore introduced in mid-2017. We aimed to evaluate economic and practical advantages and disadvantages of reusable versus single-use fURS., Materials and Methods: First, we evaluated the incidence of breakage and repairs of reusable fURS in 2017. We assessed the overall operational costs of reusable fURS including purchase, processing, and repairing in our institution from 2011 to 2017. Following our experience, we created a model to compare operation costs/procedure of single-use fURS with reusable fURS depending on repair costs., Results: In 2017, repair costs of reusable fURS increased by 345% compared with the period 2011-2016, causing: a median unavailability per reusable fURS of 200 days/year (100-249), median number of functioning fURS 0/5-3/5 per operating day, while unavailability of reusable fURS had become the first reason for cancellation of procedure. Since it was introduced, single-use fURS accounted for 59% of the flexible ureteroscopy activity. Taking into account the costs of processing, maintenance and repair, in 2011-2016 versus 2017, the single-use fURS was cost-effective compared with the reusable fURS until the 22nd procedure versus the 73rd procedure, respectively., Conclusions: After years of exclusive reusable fURS, the rising incidence of breakage not only increased maintenance costs but also hampered daily activity owing to unavailability of the devices. The introduction of single-use with reusable fURS provided substantial help to maintain our activity.

Objective: A "cost-awareness" campaign was undertaken at a tertiary hospital from 2015 to 2016 to raise awareness about costs of disposable versus reusable instruments in laparoscopic procedures. We undertook a before and after survey of obstetrician/gynecologists (Ob/Gyns) to find out if the campaign had affected their attitudes about choosing disposable versus less expensive reusable instruments., Methods: In 2015 (before the cost-awareness campaign) and 2017 (after the cost-awareness campaign), all full-time university-associated Ob/Gyns were mailed a cover letter, questionnaire, and coffee card ($5) with a postage-paid return envelope. Responses (with unique identification) from Ob/Gyns who perform laparoscopic procedures were entered into a password-protected REDCap database on a secure server. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) (Canadian Task Force Classification II-3)., Results: A total of 35 of 42 eligible Ob/Gyns (85%) with a median 10 years in practice completed questionnaires before and after the intervention. The majority had undertaken minimally invasive surgery training, mainly during residency (80%) and conferences (71%). Before the intervention, the three most important qualities influencing their decision to use a particular instrument were safety (66%), effectiveness (57%), and personal experience (49%). After the intervention, the three most important qualities were effectiveness (57%), safety (57%), and ease of use (46%). Device cost was ranked sixth (26%) before and seventh (17%) after the intervention. The majority (57%) of participants did not change their choice of disposable or reusable instruments, or they would make the choice according to the specific procedure., Conclusion: Given the current economy, operative costs are constantly under review. Knowledge about Ob/Gyns' attitudes provides information to design more effective awareness campaigns to encourage use of less costly instruments. To change practice, a campaign increasing Ob/Gyns' exposure to less expensive but safe and effective instruments may help to increase uptake and potentially lead to cost reduction. Cost awareness alone is unlikely to change practice., (Copyright © 2019 The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada/La Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To critically review all literature concerning the cost-effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy comparing single-use with reusable scopes., Materials and Methods: A systematic online literature review was performed in PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases. All factors potentially affecting surgical costs or clinical outcomes were considered. Prospective assessments, case control and case series studies were included., Results: 741 studies were found. Of those, 18 were duplicated and 77 were not related to urology procedures. Of the remaining 646 studies, 59 were considered of relevance and selected for further analysis. Stone free and complication rates were similar between single-use and reusable scopes. Operative time was in average 20% shorter with digital scopes, single-use or not. Reusable digital scopes seem to last longer than optic ones, though scope longevity is very variable worldwide. New scopes usually last four times more than refurbished ones and single-use ureterorenoscopes have good resilience throughout long cases. Longer scope longevity is achieved with Cidex and if a dedicated nurse takes care of the sterilization process. The main surgical factors that negatively impact device longevity are lower pole pathologies, large stone burden and non-use of a ureteral access sheath. We have built a comprehensive fi nancial costeffective decision model to fl exible ureteroscope acquisition., Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of a fl exible ureteroscopy program is dependent of several aspects. We have developed a equation to allow a literature-based and adaptable decision model to every interested stakeholder. Disposable devices are already a reality and will progressively become the standard as manufacturing price falls., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright® by the International Brazilian Journal of Urology.)

More than seven billion mobile phones are estimated to be in service globally, with more than a billion older phones likely to be retired. A major barrier to a sustainable circular economy for mobile phones is people's hoarding of their retired phones. Old mobile phones may be refurbished for re-use or ultimately dismantled for possible extraction of elements, including 'conflict' metals such as coltan (containing elements tantalum and niobium), mined in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and threatening wild populations of eastern Grauer's gorillas (Gorilla beringei graueri). Zoos Victoria cares for western gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) who served as ambassadors for their Grauer's gorilla counterparts in this community-based social marketing initiative. Through tracking of barcodes on satchels of recycled mobile phones, efficiency of ten different points of influence could be calculated for the 'They're Calling on You' mobile phone recycling community campaign at Zoos Victoria in Australia. Over a six-year period (2009-2014), a total of 115,369 mobile phones were donated. The Courier Collect initiative resulted in 50,883 mobile phone donations (44% of total), followed by the Static Display at Melbourne Zoo, resulting in 29,778 mobile phone donations (26% of total). The number of phones collected for Keeper Talks (at Melbourne Zoo and Werribee Open Range Zoo) was 12,684 (11% of total), and in terms of fostering close connections between visitors and the conservation campaign, keeper talks were effective as one phone was donated for every four people attending a keeper talk at Werribee Open Range Zoo and one phone was donated for every 28 people who attended a keeper talk at Melbourne Zoo. We provide suggestions for future campaigns, so that accurate data capture can allow cost-benefit analyses to be conducted. Our results demonstrate that a conservation-based organisation, in partnership with corporate sponsors and community groups can effectively influenced people's mobile phone recycling behavior, paving the way for international collaborations to maximize scale and impact., Competing Interests: Rachel Lowry is employed by Zoos Victoria. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in the guide for authors.

The purpose of this study is to analyze clinical outcomes and costs of single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes in comparison with reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes in a tertiary referral center. Prospectively, 68 flexible ureterorenoscopies utilizing reusable (Flex-X2S, Flex-X C , Karl Storz) and 68 applying single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes (LithoVue, Boston Scientific) were collected. Clinical outcome parameters such as overall success rate, complication rates according to Clavien-Dindo, operation time and radiation exposure time were measured. Cost analysis was based on purchase costs and recurrent costs for repair and reprocessing divided by number of procedures. In each group 68 procedures were available for evaluation. In 91% of reusable and 88% of single-use ureterorenoscopies stone disease was treated with a mean stone burden of 101 ± 226 and 90 ± 244 mm 2 and lower pole involvement in 47 and 41%, respectively (p > 0.05). Comparing clinical outcomes of reusable vs. single-use instruments revealed no significant difference for overall success rates (81 vs. 87%), stone-free rates (82 vs. 85%), operation time (76.2 ± 46.8 vs. 76.8 ± 40.2 min), radiation exposure time (3.83 ± 3.15 vs. 3.93 ± 4.43 min) and complication rates (7 vs. 17%) (p > 0.05). A wide range of repair and purchase costs resulted in total to $1212-$1743 per procedure for reusable ureterorenoscopy whereas price of single-use ureterorenoscopy was $1300-$3180 per procedure. The current work provided evidence for equal clinical effectiveness of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes. Partially overlapping ranges of costs for single-use and reusable scopes stress the importance to precisely know the expenses and caseload when negotiating purchase prices, repair prices and warranty conditions.

Background: Traditional medical device procurement criteria include efficacy and safety, ease of use and handling, and procurement costs. However, little information is available about life cycle environmental impacts of the production, use, and disposal of medical devices, or about costs incurred after purchase. Reusable and disposable laryngoscopes are of current interest to anesthesiologists. Facing mounting pressure to quickly meet or exceed conflicting infection prevention guidelines and oversight body recommendations, many institutions may be electively switching to single-use disposable (SUD) rigid laryngoscopes or overcleaning reusables, potentially increasing both costs and waste generation. This study provides quantitative comparisons of environmental impacts and total cost of ownership among laryngoscope options, which can aid procurement decision making to benefit facilities and public health., Methods: We describe cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) methods and apply these to reusable and SUD metal and plastic laryngoscope handles and tongue blade alternatives at Yale-New Haven Hospital (YNHH). The US Environmental Protection Agency's Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI) life cycle impact assessment method was used to model environmental impacts of greenhouse gases and other pollutant emissions., Results: The SUD plastic handle generates an estimated 16-18 times more life cycle carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq) than traditional low-level disinfection of the reusable steel handle. The SUD plastic tongue blade generates an estimated 5-6 times more CO2-eq than the reusable steel blade treated with high-level disinfection. SUD metal components generated much higher emissions than all alternatives. Both the SUD handle and SUD blade increased life cycle costs compared to the various reusable cleaning scenarios at YNHH. When extrapolated over 1 year (60,000 intubations), estimated costs increased between $495,000 and $604,000 for SUD handles and between $180,000 and $265,000 for SUD blades, compared to reusables, depending on cleaning scenario and assuming 4000 (rated) uses. Considering device attrition, reusable handles would be more economical than SUDs if they last through 4-5 uses, and reusable blades 5-7 uses, before loss., Conclusions: LCA and LCC are feasible methods to ease interpretation of environmental impacts and facility costs when weighing device procurement options. While management practices vary between institutions, all standard methods of cleaning were evaluated and sensitivity analyses performed so that results are widely applicable. For YNHH, the reusable options presented a considerable cost advantage, in addition to offering a better option environmentally. Avoiding overcleaning reusable laryngoscope handles and blades is desirable from an environmental perspective. Costs may vary between facilities, and LCC methodology demonstrates the importance of time-motion labor analysis when comparing reusable and disposable device options.

Rationale, Aims, and Objectives: There is at present no standard methodology to analyse the organizational impacts (OIs) of medical devices (MDs), and the field is still in its infancy. The aim of the present study was to assess, at a hospital level, the organizational and economic impacts of the introduction of a new MD, specifically the single-use flexible bronchoscope (FB)., Methods: Both the organizational and economic impacts of the single-use FB were evaluated in comparison with the reusable FB currently used as standard practice in our institution. First, process maps were created for both devices (reusable and single use). Based on the 12 types of OI defined by Roussel et al, interviews were conducted with all stakeholders, and the positive and negative aspects of the reusable and single-use processes were analysed. In a second step, microcosting analysis was conducted to determine the most economical balance in use of the 2 technologies., Results: Process maps highlighted the complexity of the reusable device process when compared with the single-use device process. Among the 12 types of OI, the single-use FB process scored better than the reusable FB process in 75% of cases. With the "fleet" of 15 reusable FBs available in our institution, using single-use FBs would represent an extra cost of €154 per procedure. Single-use and reusable devices would have the same cost (€232 per procedure) with a theoretical annual activity of 328 bronchoscopies, which is much lower than our current activity (1644 procedures per year)., Conclusions: Organizational impact should be considered when assessing MDs. We show in this study that from an organizational viewpoint, there are many advantages to using single-use bronchoscopes. However, in economic impact, it is more cost-effective for our institution, with more than 1500 bronchoscopies performed annually, to use reusable devices., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: To assess and measure the capability of a single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscope, the LithoVue™ (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA), and to assess if there is a benefit to switching to single-use scopes., Patients and Methods: The LithoVue was compared to two commonly used reusable flexible ureteroscopes (Olympus URF-V [Olympus, Tokyo, Japan] and Karl Storz Flex-X c [Karl Storz & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany]) ex vivo. An analysis of reusable ureteroscope usage was performed to evaluate damage, durability, and maintenance costs. This was then compared to the projected costs of using single-use disposable scopes., Results: Flexion, deflection and irrigation flow of the LithoVue was equivalent, if not better than the reusable flexible ureteroscopes. An analysis of 234 procedures with seven new Olympus URF-V scopes, revealed 15 scope damages. Staghorn stones and lower pole/mid-zone stones were significant risk factors for damage (P = 0.014). Once damage occurred it was likely to occur again. Total repair costs were $162 628 (Australian dollars) (£92 411 in Great British pounds), the mean cost per case was $695 (£395). Factoring in the purchase cost, cleaning and repair costs, the cumulative cost of 28 reusable flexible ureteroscopy procedures was ~$50 000 (£28 412). If the LithoVue was priced at $1 200 (£682), switching to a single-use scope would cost ~$35 000 (£19 888)., Conclusion: The LithoVue is analogous to reusable flexible ureteroscopes in regard to standard technical metrics. Depending on its purchase cost it may also represent a cost saving for hospitals when compared to the cumulative costs of maintaining reusable scopes. Additionally, urologist may consider using the scope in cases in which reusable scope damage is anticipated., (© 2018 The Authors BJU International © 2018 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Reusable ureteroscope durability and need for repair are significant sources of expense and inefficiency for patients and urologists. Utilization of LithoVue™, a disposable flexible digital ureteroscope, may address some of these concerns. To identify its economic impact on clinical care, we performed a micro-cost comparison between flexible reusable fiberoptic ureteroscopes (URF-P6™) and LithoVue., Patients and Methods: For this prospective, single-center micro-costing study, all consecutive ureteroscopies performed during 1 week each in July and August 2016 utilized either URF-P6 or LithoVue ureteroscopes respectively. Workflow data were collected, including intraoperative events, postoperative reprocessing cycle timing, consumables usage, and ureteroscope cost data., Results: Intraoperative data analysis showed mean total operating room time for URF-P6 and LithoVue cases were 93.4 ± 32.3 and 73.6 ± 17.4 minutes, respectively (p = 0.093). Mean cost of operating room usage per case was calculated at $1618.72 ± 441.39 for URF-P6 and $1348.64 ± 237.40 for LithoVue based on institutional cost rates exclusive of disposables. Postoperative data analysis revealed costs of $107.27 for labor and consumables during reprocessing for URF-P6 cases. The costs of ureteroscope repair and capital acquisition for each URF-P6 case were $957.71 and $116.02, respectively. The total ureteroscope cost per case for URF-P6 and LithoVue were $2799.72 and $2852.29, respectively., Conclusions: Micro-cost analysis revealed that the cost of LithoVue acquisition is higher per case compared to reusable fiberoptic ureteroscopes, but savings are realized in labor, consumables, and repair. When accounting for these factors, the total cost per case utilizing these two ureteroscopes were comparable.

Objectives: Since 2009, single-use (SU) ancillaries for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been marketed to replace reusable ancillaries. The concept is not innovative but their use in orthopedics is still uncommon. An assessment has been done for the use of SU ancillary in Assistance publique-hôpitaux de Paris with the consequences for the patient, the surgeon and the hospital., Methods: A technical and a clinical review has been done with those devices in 2015. The economic and organizational impacts were identified and submitted for opinion to committee experts in orthopedics., Results: Three SU ancillaries are commercialized. No clinical studies are currently available. There is no reimbursement for SU ancillaries whereas reusable ancillaries are included in prosthesis reimbursement price. Although SU ancillaries (TKA and THA) saving costs for sterilization, the annual additional budget estimated for their purchase would approximately be 2.5 times higher. Nevertheless, indirect savings could be also considered in the long-term period (global costs for sterilization, volume effect…). For the same quality, according to the experts, organizational impacts are low for the patient and the surgeon but potentially important for the hospital, the nursing and pharmaceutical staff, and logistical activities., Conclusions: On logistic, clinical and financial aspects, SU ancillaries need more evaluation. The switch to SU ancillaries allows saving sterilization costs and time, and provided an immediate mobilization of the equipment but their interest must be demonstrated by clinical and economic data., (Copyright © 2017 Académie Nationale de Pharmacie. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine whether surgeon selection of instrumentation and other supplies during video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy (VATSL) can safely reduce intraoperative costs., Methods: In this retrospective, cost-focused review of all video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery anatomic lung resections performed by 2 surgeons at a single institution between 2010 and 2014, we compared VATSL hospital costs and perioperative outcomes between the surgeons, as well as costs of VATSL compared with thoracotomy lobectomy (THORL)., Results: A total of 100 VATSLs were performed by surgeon A, and 70 were performed by surgeon B. The preoperative risk factors did not differ significantly between the 2 groups of surgeries. Mean VATSL total hospital costs per case were 24% percent greater for surgeon A compared with surgeon B (P = .0026). Intraoperative supply costs accounted for most of this cost difference and were 85% greater for surgeon A compared with surgeon B (P < .0001). The use of nonstapler supplies, including energy devices, sealants, and disposables, drove intraoperative costs, accounting for 55% of the difference in intraoperative supply costs between the surgeons. Operative time was 25% longer for surgeon A compared with surgeon B (P < .0001), but this accounted for only 11% of the difference in total cost. Surgeon A's overall VATSL costs per case were similar to those of THORLs (n = 100) performed over the same time period, whereas surgeon B's VATSL costs per case were 24% less than those of THORLs. On adjusted analysis, there was no difference in VATSL perioperative outcomes between the 2 surgeons., Conclusions: The costs of VATSL differ substantially among surgeons and are heavily influenced by the use of disposable equipment/devices. Surgeons can substantially reduce the costs of VATSL to far lower than those of THORL without compromising surgical outcomes through prudent use of costly instruments and technologies., (Copyright © 2017 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Air/water syringe (AWS) tips can be used in any type of dental care. They may be disposable (plastic) or reusable (stainless steel or plastic). We assessed the costs of using both sorts of tips in a French teaching hospital. A systematic use of one AWS tip per dental consultation was considered. Consultations performed with reusable AWS (stainless steel) tips give rise to costs linked to initial purchase of tips, their sterilisation, and replacement. Consultation costs of disposable AWS tips were calculated at their current purchase price. Replacing reusable tips was evaluat-ed in two different situations: annual replacement or replacement in case of visual deterioration. Results showed that the number of consultations must lie beyond a certain threshold in order to make reusable tips more economical in use than disposable counterparts. If the reusable tips are replaced every year, this threshold is higher (e.g.: 1,366consultations at the University of Bordeaux) than under a rule of tip replacement in case of visual deterioration (e.g. at the Bordeaux University: 1,267consultations in case of an annual replacement rate of 10%, or 1,289 with a re-placement rate of 30%). This is the first study regarding the costs of disposable versus reusable AWS tips. We suggest that disposable tips might be more cost-effective than reusable tips, not-ably because of their reduced risk of crosscontamination. The choice of the use of one or an-other AWS tip crucially depends on the number of consultations, as well as on their practical utilisation and on infection control issues.

Purpose: Since the Brazilian current legislation permits the reuse of single-use devices under a validated processing protocol, the main purpose of our study was to develop and validate a method for reusing non-irrigated electrophysiology catheter (EC)., Methods: Manual and mechanical processing by ultrasonic washer was associated with the use of enzymatic solution and hydrogen peroxide with a final rinse with filtered water. Validation of the cleaning process, as well as catheter integrity, was done by observing the ECs in stereoscopic microscope at ×60 magnification, followed by HemoCheck-S® (HCS) test to monitor the presence of residual blood on their surfaces. Ethylene oxide (EO) was used for sterilization, and the final validations of the processing were performed by assays of sterility, pyrogenicity, and EO residuals. Lastly, a cost-minimization study was performed., Results: Cleaning process demonstrated absence of organic material detectable by HCS at the surfaces of the ECs. Assays for sterility were negative, and assays of EO residuals and endotoxins showed levels under established standards. The number of reuses was settled to a maximum of seven uses for the ECs with handle and ten uses for ECS without handle. The cost-minimization study showed an 84% savings, when considering seven reuses., Conclusions: Processing of ECs was validated at all stages. Therefore, reuse of ECs under the conditions that we designed was considered safe for patients and cost-effective for our institution.

Objective: To present a minimization-cost analysis to compare reusable and single-use fiberscopes in a French health institution., Materials and Methods: The amortization cost assessment has been achieved over a period of five years, and took into account the acquisition and maintenance costs, as well as the costs related to disinfection of reusable fiberscopes. The cost of single-use fiberscopes was calculated according to its acquisition and elimination costs. Finally, we compared the costs of single-use vs. reusable use during nights, weekends and days off to estimate the additional cost of the referencing of single-use fiberscopes for theses specific periods., Results: The total cost of reusable fiberscopes was 62,511 € including VAT over 5 years whereas the cost of single-use fiberscope was 79,200 € including VAT over 5 years. The total cost of single-use fiberscopes if utilized during nights, weekends and days off was estimated to 19,800 € including VAT over 5 years, with an estimated activity at 15 intubations per year. Conversely, the cost of the utilization of reusable fiberscopes during nights, weekends and days off was estimate to 13,075 € including VAT over 5 years., Conclusion: This study shows that the utilization costs of single use and reusable fiberscopes are very close. But because of the benefits of single-use fiberscopes and according to current recommendations, we consider to acquire single-use fiberscope especially for emergencies such as difficult tracheal intubation and for restrictive periods (nights, weekends and day off)., (Copyright © 2017 Académie Nationale de Pharmacie. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Careful decontamination and sterilization of reusable flexible ureteroscopes used in ureterorenoscopy cases prevent the spread of infectious pathogens to patients and technicians. However, inefficient reprocessing and unavailability of ureteroscopes sent out for repair can contribute to expensive operating room (OR) delays. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) was applied to describe the time and costs involved in reprocessing., Materials and Methods: Direct observation and timing were performed for all steps in reprocessing of reusable flexible ureteroscopes following operative procedures. Estimated times needed for each step by which damaged ureteroscopes identified during reprocessing are sent for repair were characterized through interviews with purchasing analyst staff. Process maps were created for reprocessing and repair detailing individual step times and their variances. Cost data for labor and disposables used were applied to calculate per minute and average step costs., Results: Ten ureteroscopes were followed through reprocessing. Process mapping for ureteroscope reprocessing averaged 229.0 ± 74.4 minutes, whereas sending a ureteroscope for repair required an estimated 143 minutes per repair. Most steps demonstrated low variance between timed observations. Ureteroscope drying was the longest and highest variance step at 126.5 ± 55.7 minutes and was highly dependent on manual air flushing through the ureteroscope working channel and ureteroscope positioning in the drying cabinet. Total costs for reprocessing totaled $96.13 per episode, including the cost of labor and disposable items., Conclusions: Utilizing TDABC delineates the full spectrum of costs associated with ureteroscope reprocessing and identifies areas for process improvement to drive value-based care. At our institution, ureteroscope drying was one clearly identified target area. Implementing training in ureteroscope drying technique could save up to 2 hours per reprocessing event, potentially preventing expensive OR delays.

Despite almost universal practice of dialyzer reuse from the earliest days of haemodialysis, reusing dialyzer always remains a controversial issue and several ethical concerns have been raised. Some of the important are safety of reuse over single use, informed consent of the patient, conflict of interest on the part of physician or manufacturer, fiscal responsibility and environmental stewardship. Indeed, at the beginning of this century, there was a drastic shift of practice in favour of single use in developed countries due to availability of biocompatible haemodialyzers, at favourable price. Despite this mega shift, dialyzer reuse is still widely practised in low-income countries. Considering cost inflation and limited medical resources in such countries, dialyzer reuse may be justified as a cost-saving strategy for this part of world. However, it poses the same ethical questions to us which were a matter of debate for the western world in the 1980s and 1990s. This review of literature was planned to revisit and highlight these concerns.

Background.: An innovative approach to choosing hospital equipment is to consider the environmental costs in addition to other costs and benefits., Methods.: We used life cycle assessment to model the environmental and financial costs of different scenarios of replacing reusable anaesthetic equipment with single-use variants. The primary environmental costs were CO 2 emissions (in CO 2 equivalents) and water use (in litres). We compared energy source mixes between Australia, the UK/Europe, and the USA., Results.: For an Australian hospital with six operating rooms, the annual financial cost of converting from single-use equipment to reusable anaesthetic equipment would be an AUD$32 033 (£19 220), 46% decrease. In Australia, converting from single-use to reusable equipment would result in an increase of CO 2 emissions from 5095 (95% CI: 4614-5658) to 5575 kg CO 2 eq (95% CI: 5542-5608), a 480 kg CO 2 eq (9%) increase. Using the UK/European power mix, converting from single-use (5575 kg CO 2 eq) to reusable anaesthetic equipment (802 kg CO 2 eq) would result in an 84% reduction (4873 kg CO 2 eq) in CO 2 emissions, whilst in the USA converting to reusables would have led to a 2427 kg CO 2 eq (48%) reduction. In Australia, converting from single-use to reusable equipment would more than double water use from 34.4 to 90.6 kilolitres., Conclusions.: For an Australian hospital with six operating rooms, converting from single-use to reusable anaesthetic equipment saved more than AUD$30 000 (£18 000) per annum, but increased the CO 2 emissions by almost 10%. The CO 2 offset is highly dependent on the power source mix, while water consumption is greater for reusable equipment., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Background: Increasing costs of material resources challenge hospitals to stay profitable. Particularly in anesthesia departments and intensive care units, bronchoscopes are used for various indications. Inefficient management of single- and multiple-use systems can influence the hospitals' material costs substantially. Using mathematical modeling, we developed a strategic decision support tool to determine the optimum mix of disposable and reusable bronchoscopy devices in the setting of an intensive care unit., Methods: A mathematical model with the objective to minimize costs in relation to demand constraints for bronchoscopy devices was formulated. The stochastic model decides whether single-use, multi-use, or a strategically chosen mix of both device types should be used. A decision support tool was developed in which parameters for uncertain demand such as mean, standard deviation, and a reliability parameter can be inserted. Furthermore, reprocessing costs per procedure, procurement, and maintenance costs for devices can be parameterized., Results: Our experiments show for which demand pattern and reliability measure, it is efficient to only use reusable or disposable devices and under which circumstances the combination of both device types is beneficial., Conclusions: To determine the optimum mix of single-use and reusable bronchoscopy devices effectively and efficiently, managers can enter their hospital-specific parameters such as demand and prices into the decision support tool.The software can be downloaded at: https://github.com/drdanielgartner/bronchomix/.

Purpose: Questions remain regarding the durability and longevity of flexible ureteroscopes. The objective of this study was to estimate the potential economic benefits of single use, flexible digital ureteroscopes compared to our recent experience with reusable flexible digital ureteroscopes using cost-benefit analysis., Materials and Methods: Ureteroscopic procedures were prospectively recorded over the 12-month period of February 2014 to February 2015. All flexible ureteroscopies were performed using Flex X C digital ureteroscopes (Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, El Segundo, California). Cost assessment was based on the original purchasing cost and repair-exchange fees divided by the number of cases. An algorithm was created to include per case reprocessing costs and calculate the benefit-to-cost ratio. This cost was compared to potential costs of the LithoVue™, a single use digital ureteroscope., Results: In 160 cases a flexible reusable ureteroscope was used. There was damage to 11 ureteroscopes during this time with an average of 12.5 cases to failure. Excluding original purchasing costs, the cost analysis revealed an amortized cost of $848.10 per use. After 99 ureteroscope cases the cost-benefit analysis favored reusable ureteroscopes compared to disposable ureteroscopes., Conclusions: Digital ureteroscopes are the latest trend in the evolution of endourology. It appears that a disposable ureteroscope may be cost beneficial at centers with a lower case volume per year. However, institutions with a high volume of cases may find reusable ureteroscopes cost beneficial., (Copyright © 2017 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The practice of reprocessing dialyzers for reuse, once predominant in the United States, has been steadily declining over the last 20 years. The professed roles of reuse in improving dialyzer membrane biocompatibility and lowering the risk of first-use syndrome have lost relevance with the advent of biocompatible dialyzer membranes and favorable sterilization techniques. The potential for cost-savings from reuse is also called into question by the easy availability of comparatively cheaper dialyzers and rising regulatory demands and operational cost of reprocessing systems. While the environmental concerns from additional dialyzer-related solid waste from rising single-use practice remains pertinent and requires development of safer dialyzer disposable system technologies, there is no meaningful medical rationale for the continued practice of dialyzer reuse in the twenty-first century., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: The quality of instruments and surgical expertise in minimally invasive surgery has developed markedly in the last two decades. Attention is now being turned to ways to allow surgeons to adopt more cost-effective and environmental-friendly approaches. This review explores current evidence on the cost and environmental impact of reusable versus single-use instruments. In addition, we aim to compare their quality, functionality and associated clinical outcomes., Method: The Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant literature from January 2000 to May 2015. Subject headings were Equipment Reuse/, Disposable Equipment/, Cholecystectomy/, Laparoscopic/, Laparoscopy/, Surgical Instruments/, Medical Waste Disposal/, Waste Management/, Medical Waste/, Environmental Sustainability/ and Sterilization/., Results: There are few objective comparative analyses between single-use versus reusable instruments. Current evidence suggests that limiting use of disposal instruments to necessity may hold both economical and environmental advantages. Theoretical advantages of single-use instruments in quality, safety, sterility, ease of use and importantly patient outcomes have rarely been examined. Cost-saving methods, environmental-friendly methods, global operative costs, hidden costs, sterilization methods and quality assurance systems vary greatly between studies making it difficult to gain an overview of the comparison between single-use and reusable instruments., Conclusions: 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., (© 2016 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.)