Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

  • Original article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background:

The economic and environmental effects were compared between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Special consideration was given to the processing of reusable instruments in the Miele G 7736 CD MCU washer disinfector and the resultant cost of sterilization.

Methods:

The instruments frequently used in their disposable form were identified with the help of surgeons. Thus, of all the instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the disposable and reusable versions of trocars, scissors, and Veress cannula were compared.

Results:

For the case examined in this study, the performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with disposable instruments was 19 times more expensive that for reusable instruments. The higher cost of using disposable instruments is primarily attributable to the purchase price of the instruments. The processing of reusable instruments has little significance in terms of cost, whereas the cost for disposing of disposable instruments is the least significant factor. The number of laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed per year does not substantially influence cost. In the authors’ opinion, assessment of the environmental consequences shows that reusable instruments are environmentally advantageous.

Conclusions:

Considering the upward pressure of costs in hospitals, disposable instruments should be used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy only if they offer clear advantages over reusable instruments.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. KN Apelgren ML Blank CA Slomski NS Hadjis (1994) ArticleTitleReusable instruments are more cost effective than disposable instruments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy Surg Endosc 8 32–34 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByuB3cvptV0%3D Occurrence Handle8153862

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. L Demoulin K Kesteloot F Penninckx (1996) ArticleTitleA cost comparison of disposable vs reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy Surg Endosc 10 520–525 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymB2s%2FitFU%3D Occurrence Handle8658331

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Deutsches Institut fur Normung (1981) DIN 58946-3: Sterilization, Dampf-Sterilisatoren, Prüfung auf Wirksamkeit. Berlin, Erich Beuth Verlag, 1981 [German Institute for Standardization, DIN 58946-3: sterilization, steam sterilizers, examination on effectiveness]

  4. L Heyne (1995) ArticleTitleEnergieverbrauch und kosten auf dem Prüfstand Krankenhaustechnik 21 101–106

    Google Scholar 

  5. R Lefering H Troidl BM Ure (1994) ArticleTitleEntscheiden die Kosten? Einweg oder wiederverwendbare Instrumente bei der laparoskopischen Cholezystektomie [Do the costs decide? Disposable or reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy] Chirurg 65 317–325 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByuB1M7ks1w%3D Occurrence Handle8020351

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. FJ Löbbert (1998) ArticleTitleOhne Mief: Moderne Inkontinenz Logistik in Krankenhäusern [No fug: modern age incontinence logistics in hospitals] Krankenhaustechnik 1/2 22–23

    Google Scholar 

  7. InstitutionalAuthorNameNationales Referenzzentrum für Krankenhaushygiene (1999) ArticleTitleAnwendung von Reinigungs und Desinfektionsmaschinen in Krankenhaus und Praxis Krh Hyg Inf Verh 21 22–28

    Google Scholar 

  8. V Paolucci B Schaeff C Gutt G Morawe A Encke (1995) ArticleTitleEinmal versus wiederverwendbare Instrumente in der laparoskopischen Chirurgie: eine kontrollierte Untersuchung [Disposable versus reusable instruments in laparoscopic surgery: a controlled study] Zentralbl Chir 120 47–52 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByqC1MzjvFA%3D Occurrence Handle7887039

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. GN Schaer OR Koechli U Haller (1995) ArticleTitleSingle-use versus reusable laparoscopic surgical instruments: a cost analysis Am J Obstet Gynecol 173 1812–1815 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymC3M%2FlslQ%3D Occurrence Handle8610767

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. L Sourhada (1993) ArticleTitleReusables may slow the rising tide of laparoscopic surgery costs Mater Manag Health Care 2 22

    Google Scholar 

  11. LW Traverso K Hargrave (1995) ArticleTitleA prospective cost analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy Am J Surg 169 503–506 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByqB28nmvVQ%3D Occurrence Handle7747829

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Adler.

Additional information

This work was supported by a grant from Karl Storz GmbH & Co., Tuttlingen, Germany.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Adler, S., Scherrer, M., Rückauer, K.D. et al. Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 19, 268–272 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-003-9232-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-003-9232-4

Keywords

Navigation