Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reprocessed single-use devices in laparoscopy: assessment of cost, environmental impact, and patient safety

  • SAGES Technology and Value Assessments Committee Review
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. CMS (2016) National health expenditures 2016 highlights. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf

  2. Sherman JD, Hopf HW (2018) Balancing infection control and environmental protection as a matter of patient safety: the case of laryngoscope handles. Anesth Analg. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. FDA (2015) Reprocessing medical devices in health care settings: validation methods and labeling. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm253010.pdf

  4. CDC (2008) Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities. https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/guidelines/disinfection-guidelines.pdf

  5. Sherman JD, Raibley LA, Eckelman MJ (2018) Life cycle assessment and costing methods for device procurement: comparing reusable and single-use disposable laryngoscopes. Anesth Analg. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaplan S, Sadler B, Little K, Franz C, Orris P (2012) Can sustainable hospitals help bend the health care cost curve. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 29:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  7. GAO (2008) Reprocessed single use medical devices. Report to the committee on oversight and government reform, United States Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.

  8. Gärtner D, Münz K, Hückelheim E, Hesse U (2008) Ultrasound scissors: new single-use instruments vs. resterilised single-use instruments—a prospective randomised study. GMS Krankenhhyg Interdiszip 3:Doc20

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Mues AC, Haramis G, Casazza C, Okhunov Z, Badani KK, Landman J (2010) Prospective randomized single-blinded in vitro and ex vivo evaluation of new and reprocessed laparoscopic trocars. J Am Coll Surg 211:738–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ralph S. Carungi DO, FACS, FACOS; Irwin S, Simon MD, FACS, ESQ (2010) Safety and performance evaluation of remanufactured harmonic® scalpels. http://amdr.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/White-Paper-Safety-and-Performance-Eval-of-Remfd-Harmonic-Scalpels-1.pdf

  11. Weld KJ, Dryer S, Hruby G, Ames CD, Venkatesh R, Matthews BD, Landman J (2006) Comparison of mechanical and in vivo performance of new and reprocessed harmonic scalpels. Urology 67:898–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yung E, Gagner M, Pomp A, Dakin G, Milone L, Strain G (2010) Cost comparison of reusable and single-use ultrasonic shears for laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 20:512–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Arregui ME (2000) Is it possible to resterilize disposable laparoscopy trocars in a hospital setting? Editorial point and counterpoint. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 10:62–64

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chan AC, Ip M, Koehler A, Crisp B, Tam JS, Chung SC (2000) Is it safe to reuse disposable laparoscopic trocars? An in vitro testing. Surg Endosc 14:1042–1044

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ulualp KM, Hamzaoglu I, Ulgen SK, Sahin DA, Saribas S, Ozturk R, Cebeci H (2000) Is it possible to resterilize disposable laparoscopy trocars in a hospital setting. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 10:59–62 (Discussion 62)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. dos Santos VS, Zilberstein B, Possari JF, dos Santos MA, Quintanilha AG, Ribeiro U (2008) Single-use trocar: is it possible to reprocess it after the first use. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 18:464–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cassera MA, Goers TA, Spaun GO, Swanström LL (2011) Efficacy of using a novel endoscopic lens cleaning device: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Innov 18:150–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kelty CJ, Super PA, Stoddard CJ (2000) The driving force in trocar insertion: a comparison between disposable and reusable trocars. Surg Endosc 14:1045–1046

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Colak T, Ersoz G, Akca T, Kanik A, Aydin S (2004) Efficacy and safety of reuse of disposable laparoscopic instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 18:727–731

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Montero PN, Robinson TN, Weaver JS, Stiegmann GV (2010) Insulation failure in laparoscopic instruments. Surg Endosc 24:462–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Espada M, Munoz R, Noble BN, Magrina JF (2011) Insulation failure in robotic and laparoscopic instrumentation: a prospective evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205:121, e1–e5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tixier F, Garçon M, Rochefort F, Corvaisier S (2016) Insulation failure in electrosurgery instrumentation: a prospective evaluation. Surg Endosc 30:4995–5001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fuchshuber P, Schwaitzberg S, Jones D, Jones SB, Feldman L, Munro M, Robinson T, Purcell-Jackson G, Mikami D, Madani A, Brunt M, Dunkin B, Gugliemi C, Groah L, Lim R, Mischna J, Voyles CR (2017) The SAGES fundamental use of surgical energy program (FUSE): history, development, and purpose. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5933-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lester BR, Miller K, Boers A, Harris DC, Gamble WG (2010) Comparison of in vivo clinical performance and shaft temperature and in vitro tissue temperature and transection times between new and reprocessed harmonic scalpels. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20:e150–e159

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Ohio State University, 1492 E Broad St 11th Fl #1102, Columbus, OH, 43205, USA

    David Renton

  2. GI Surgical Specialists, PLLC, Fort Myers, FL, USA

    Peter Denk

  3. Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Oliver Varban

Authors
  1. David Renton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Denk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oliver Varban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Renton.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Oliver Varban—Salary Support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for leadership and participation roles. David Renton and Peter Denk have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Renton, D., Denk, P. & Varban, O. Reprocessed single-use devices in laparoscopy: assessment of cost, environmental impact, and patient safety. Surg Endosc 32, 4310–4313 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6275-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6275-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation