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

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Pauline Chauvet , Audrey Enguix , Valérie Sautou , Karem Slim
{"title":"A systematic review comparing the safety, cost and carbon footprint of disposable and reusable laparoscopic devices","authors":"Pauline Chauvet ,&nbsp;Audrey Enguix ,&nbsp;Valérie Sautou ,&nbsp;Karem Slim","doi":"10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2023.10.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The objective of this systematic review<span> 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.</span></p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>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.</p><p>The results of the one study on carbon footprints showed that hybrid instruments leave four times less of a carbon footprint than disposable instruments.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878788623001698","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

比较一次性和可重复使用腹腔镜设备的安全性、成本和碳足迹的系统性综述
导言本系统性文献综述旨在从安全性(第一标准)、成本和碳足迹方面对目前使用的部分一次性和可重复使用腹腔镜医疗器械进行比较。符合条件的文章为前瞻性(随机或非随机)或回顾性临床或医疗经济比较研究,这些研究比较了一次性剪刀、套管和机械内窥镜订书机与可重复使用的相同器械。结果在找到的 2882 篇文章中,有 156 篇摘要被保留下来进行研究。在对器械的安全性和有效性进行综合分析后,我们收录了四篇文章。一篇关于套管的研究强调了使用一次性器械会增加血管并发症,另一篇研究发现使用混合订书机比使用一次性订书机发生更多的围手术期事故。关于成本分析,我们纳入了 11 项研究,所有这些研究都表明一次性器械的成本明显更高。一项关于碳足迹的研究结果表明,混合器械留下的碳足迹比一次性器械少四倍。我们的综述表明,从医疗和经济角度来看,可重复使用的医疗器械,尤其是套管针,具有明显的优势。虽然有关生态影响的数据很少,但现有的数据无疑对可重复使用器械有利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信