Disposable Gastrointestinal Scopes: A Systematic Review.

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.

A Life Cycle Assessment of Reusable and Disposable Surgical Caps.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical cap attire plays an important role in creating a safe and sterile environment in procedural suites, thus the choice of reusable versus disposable caps has become an issue of much debate. Given the lack of evidence for differences in surgical site infection (SSI) risk between the two, selecting the cap option with a lower carbon footprint may reduce the environmental impact of surgical procedures. However, many institutions continue to recommend the use of disposable bouffant caps. METHODS: ISO-14044 guidelines were used to complete a process-based life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impact of disposable bouffant caps and reusable cotton caps, specifically focusing on CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions, water use and health impacts. RESULTS: Reusable cotton caps reduced CO2e emissions by 79% when compared to disposable bouffant caps (10 kg versus 49 kg CO2e) under the base model scenario with a similar reduction seen in disability-adjusted life years. However, cotton caps were found to be more water intensive than bouffant caps (67.56 L versus 12.66 L) with the majority of water use secondary to production or manufacturing. CONCLUSIONS: Reusable cotton caps have lower total lifetime CO2e emissions compared to disposable bouffant caps across multiple use scenarios. Given the lack of evidence suggesting a superior choice for surgical site infection prevention, guidelines should recommend reusable cotton caps to reduce the environmental impact of surgical procedures.

[Senegal's experience with pacemakers re-use : about 161 patients at the Aristide Le Dantec university hospital center]. / Expérience du Sénégal sur les pacemakers reconditionnés : à propos de 161 patients au centre hospitalo-universitaire Aristide Le Dantec.

INTRODUCTION: The reuse pacemakers is a beneficial technique for patients in countries with a low economic standard of living where health care is almost non-existent. We offered to share the experience of Senegal on the reconditioning of pacemakers. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a retrospective study over a period from January 2015 to December 2020 including all patients who benefited from a reconditioned pacemaker for primary implantation or reimplantation. The criteria for reconditioning pacemakers are the absence of dysfunction or damage and a residual battery life of more than 5 years of the pacemaker. Refurbished pacemakers are acquired either from deceased families or from extraction centers. Sterilization is carried out using phenoxypropanol + benzalkonium chloride solution, 70% ethanol and ethylene oxide. RESULTS: We collected 161 patients during the study period, including 77 men (48%) and 84 women (52%), i.e. a M/F sex ratio of 0.94. The average age of the population was 65 years. Functional symptomatology was dominated by syncope in 54%. Electrocardiographically, 72% of patients were in complete atrioventricular block. A primary implantation was noted in 91.5% of patients. The vascular approach most used during implantation was cephalic in 49.5% of cases. In our series, we noted that 58% of patients had benefited from temporary stimulation before implantation. At implantation, single-chamber stimulation was used in 60% of patients and 46.5% of patients had programming in VVI mode. We had 5.5% major complications with 3% box infection occurring between 3 and 6 months post-implantation and 2.5% pacemaker syndrome. We noted 1 case of death linked to underlying heart disease. CONCLUSION: Reconditioning of cardiac pacemakers is a safe and beneficial therapeutic strategy for patients. In Senegal, reconditioning has shown satisfactory results. In our countries this technique can be an alternative for certain patients.

Revealing complex interdependencies in surgical instrument reprocessing using SEIPS 101 tools.

Sterile Processing Departments (SPDs) must clean, maintain, store, and organize surgical instruments which are then delivered to Operating Rooms (ORs) using a Courier Network, with regular coordination occurring across departmental boundaries. To represent these relationships, we utilized the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 101 Toolkit, which helps model how health-related outcomes are affected by healthcare work systems. Through observations and interviews which built on prior work system analyses, we developed a SEIPS 101 journey map, PETT scan, and tasks matrices to represent the instrument reprocessing work system, revealing complex interdependencies between the people, tools, and tasks occurring within it. The SPD, OR and Courier teams are found to have overlapping responsibilities and a clear co-dependence, with critical implications for the successful functioning of the whole hospital system.

Potential health risks of microplastic fibres release from disposable surgical masks: Impact of repeated wearing and handling.

Disposable surgical masks undeniably provide important personal protection in daily life, but the potential health risks by the release of microplastic fibres from masks should command greater attention. In this study, we conducted a microplastic fibre release simulation experiment by carrying masks in a pocket and reusing them, to reveal the number and morphological changes of microfibres released. Fourier transform infrared spectrometry, scanning electron microscopy, and optical microscopy were employed to analyse the physical and chemical characteristics of the mask fibres. The results indicated that the reuse of disposable masks led to a significant release of microplastic fibres, potentially leading to their migration into the respiratory system. Furthermore, the release of microplastic fibres increased with prolonged external friction, particularly when masks were stored in pockets. The large-scale release of microplastic fibres due to mask reuse raises concerns about potential health risks to the human respiratory system. The reuse of disposable masks should be also strictly avoided in daily life in the future. Furthermore, the current study also established a robust foundation for future research endeavours on health risks associated with microplastic fibres entering the respiratory system through improper mask usage.

Investigation of Three Different UV-C Irradiation Schemes for Bacterial Decontamination of FFP2 Masks to Make Them Reusable.

The effect of filtering face piece grade 2 (FFP2) masks for infection prevention is essential in health care systems; however, it depends on supply chains. Efficient methods to reprocess FFP2 masks may be needed in disasters. Therefore, different UV-C irradiation schemes for bacterial decontamination of used FFP2 masks were investigated.Seventy-eight masks were irradiated with UV light for durations between 3 and 120 seconds and subsequently analyzed for the presence of viable bacteria on the inside. Ten masks served as the control group. Irradiation on the inside of the masks reduced bacteria in proportion to the dose, with an almost complete decontamination after 30 seconds. Outside irradiation reduced the quantity of colonies without time-dependent effects. Both sides of irradiation for a cumulated 30 seconds or more showed almost complete decontamination.Overall, this study suggests that standardized UV irradiation schemes with treatment to both sides might be an efficient and effective method for FFP2 mask decontamination in times of insufficient supplies.

Perspectives on technology: Single-use catheters - evidence and environmental impact.

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.

A prospective, pragmatic non-inferiority study of emergency intubation success with the single-use i-view versus standard reusable video laryngoscope.

INTRODUCTION: Video laryngoscope (VL) technology improves first-pass success. The novel i-view VL device is inexpensive and disposable. We sought to determine the first-pass intubation success with the i-view VL device versus the standard reusable VL systems in routine use at each site. METHODS: We performed a prospective, pragmatic study at two major emergency departments (EDs) when VL was used. We rotated i-view versus reusable VL as the preferred device of the month based on an a priori schedule. An investigator-initiated interim analysis was performed. Our primary outcome was a first-pass success with a non-inferiority margin of 10% based on the per-protocol analysis. RESULTS: There were 93 intubations using the reusable VL devices and 81 intubations using the i-view. Our study was stopped early due to futility in reaching our predetermined non-inferiority margin. Operator and patient characteristics were similar between the two groups. The first-pass success rate for the i-view group was 69.1% compared to 84.3% for the reusable VL group. A non-inferiority analysis indicated that the difference (-15.1%) and corresponding 90% confidence limits (-25.3% to -5.0%) did not fall within the predetermined 10% non-inferiority margin. CONCLUSIONS: The i-view device failed to meet our predetermined non-inferiority margin when compared to the reusable VL systems with the study stopping early due to futility. Significant crossover occurred at the discretion of the intubating operator during the i-view month.

Institutional Micro-Cost Comparative Analysis of Reusable vs Single-use Cystoscopes With Assessment of Environmental Footprint.

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.

Comparing outcomes of single-use vs reusable ureteroscopes: a systematic review and meta analysis.

Flexible ureterolithotripsy is a frequent urological procedure, usually used to remove stones from the kidney and upper ureter. Reusable uretero-scopes were the standard tool for that procedure, but recent concerns related to sterility and maintenance and repair costs created the opportunity to develop new technologies. In 2016, the first single-use digital flexible ureteroscope was introduced. Since then, other single-use ureteroscopes were developed, and studies compared them with the reusable ureteroscopes with conflicting results. The purpose of this study is to describe the literature that compares the performance of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery for urinary stones. A Systematic Review was performed in October 2022 in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA). A search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar and LILACS retrieved 10,039 articles. After screening, 12 articles were selected for the Meta-Analysis. No differences were found in stone-free rate (OR 1.31, CI 95% [0.88, 1.97]), operative time (MD 0.12, CI 95% [-5.52, 5.76]), incidence of post-operative fever (OR 0.64, CI 95% [0.22, 1.89]), or incidence of post-operative urinary tract infection (OR 0.63 CI 95% [0.30, 1.32]). No differences were observed in the studied variables. Hence, the device choice should rely on the availability, cost analysis and surgeons' preference.

Frequency of Contamination on Used Healing Abutments after Sterilization: An In Vitro Study.

PURPOSE: To determine and compare the frequency of contamination on different sites of healing abutments (HAs) after sterilization with Phloxine B dye on unused and used HAs after sterilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 HAs were divided into two test groups: (1) used and sterilized and (2) a control group (unused). The test group was evaluated for contamination after sterilization; the control group did not undergo any procedure. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 22 (IBM). Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency of contamination in the different groups and at the different HA sites. Chi-square test was used to evaluate the association of frequency of contamination with the HA site and design. The level of significance was kept at P ≤ .01. RESULTS: The test group showed more contamination compared to the control group. The most contaminated sites were the screw thread and the screwdriver engagement location. CONCLUSIONS: HA reuse is cost-effective, but cleaning and sterilization was not effective for these components; thus, HAs need to be reused with caution because they were heavily contaminated when compared to new HAs. Among the different sites, the screw thread and screwdriver engagement sites were more prone to contamination. HA type did not influence the frequency of contamination.

N95 respirator hybrid decontamination method using Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) coupled with Microwave-Generated Steam (MGS).

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has induced a critical supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) especially N95 respirators. Utilizing respirator decontamination procedures to reduce the pathogen load of a contaminated N95 respirator can be a viable solution for reuse purposes. In this study, the efficiency of a novel hybrid respirator decontamination method of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) which utilizes ultraviolet-C (UV-C) rays coupled with microwave-generated steam (MGS) against feline coronavirus (FCoV) was evaluated. The contaminated 3M 1860 respirator pieces were treated with three treatments (UVGI-only, MGS-only, and Hybrid-UVGI + MGS) with variable time. The virucidal activity was evaluated using the TCID50 method. The comparison of decontamination efficiency of the treatments indicated that the hybrid method achieved at least a pathogen log reduction of 4 logs, faster than MGS and UVGI. These data recommend that the proposed hybrid decontamination system is more effective comparatively in achieving pathogen log reduction of 4 logs.

A systematic review comparing the safety, cost and carbon footprint of disposable and reusable laparoscopic devices.

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.