Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A systematic review comparing the safety, cost and carbon footprint of disposable and reusable laparoscopic devices.
Chauvet, Pauline; Enguix, Audrey; Sautou, Valérie; Slim, Karem.
Afiliação
  • Chauvet P; Gynecology and Obstetrics Department, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, 63003 Clermont-Ferrand, France. Electronic address: pchauvet@chu-clermontferrand.fr.
  • Enguix A; Pharmacy Department, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
  • Sautou V; Clermont Auvergne University, CHU de Clermont Ferrand, Clermont Auvergne INP, CNRS, ICCF, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
  • Slim K; Digestive Surgery Department CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France; Collectif d'Eco-Responsabilité En Santé, Beaumont, France.
J Visc Surg ; 161(2S): 25-31, 2024 Apr.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38272757
ABSTRACT

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.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Laparoscopia / Reutilização de Equipamento / Equipamentos Descartáveis / Pegada de Carbono Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Health_economic_evaluation / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Laparoscopia / Reutilização de Equipamento / Equipamentos Descartáveis / Pegada de Carbono Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Health_economic_evaluation / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article