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.

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.

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.

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.

A Cost and Waste-Savings Comparison Between Single-Use and Reusable Pulse Oximetry Sensors Across US Operating Rooms.

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.

A life cycle assessment of reprocessing face masks during the Covid-19 pandemic.

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.

Enzymes, In Vivo Biocatalysis, and Metabolic Engineering for Enabling a Circular Economy and Sustainability.

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 (CO2 and CH4) 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.

Data analysis of vascular surgery instrument trays yielded large cost and efficiency savings.

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.

COVID-19 Solutions Are Climate Solutions: Lessons From Reusable Gowns.

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.

Reusable respirators as personal protective equipment during ENT surgery.

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.

Rebound tonometry with re-sterilised tips versus Goldmann applanation tonometry in children. / Tonometría de rebote con puntas nuevas y reesterilizadas versus tonometría de aplanación Goldmann en niños.

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.

Incorporating the Environmental Impact into a Budget Impact Analysis: The Example of Adopting RESPIMAT® Re-usable Inhaler.

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.

Reusable Pulse Oximetry Sensors: A Cost-Saving Quality Improvement Project.

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.

A systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis of reusable vs. single-use flexible bronchoscopes.

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.

Can a simple 'cost-awareness' campaign for laparoscopic hysterectomy change the use and costs of disposable surgical supplies? Pre-post non-controlled study.

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.