Cargando…

Evaluating the Waste Prevention Potential of a Multi- versus Single-Use Surgical Stapler

PURPOSE: Within the hospital, surgery is recognized as a resource-intensive activity that disproportionately generates large volumes of healthcare waste. Single-use, disposable medical supplies contribute substantially to this problem, and more broadly to the depletion of scarce resources. Given tha...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Meissner, Markus, Lichtnegger, Sabrina, Gibson, Scott, Saunders, Rhodri
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8457861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34566440
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S325017
_version_ 1784571194696007680
author Meissner, Markus
Lichtnegger, Sabrina
Gibson, Scott
Saunders, Rhodri
author_facet Meissner, Markus
Lichtnegger, Sabrina
Gibson, Scott
Saunders, Rhodri
author_sort Meissner, Markus
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Within the hospital, surgery is recognized as a resource-intensive activity that disproportionately generates large volumes of healthcare waste. Single-use, disposable medical supplies contribute substantially to this problem, and more broadly to the depletion of scarce resources. Given that many surgical procedures utilize surgical stapling techniques, this study uses surgical stapling systems as functional units for evaluating the waste prevention potential of switching from single-use systems (SUSs) to multi-use systems (MUSs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two frequently used surgical stapling systems, Ethicon’s SUS: ECHELON FLEX™ and Medtronic’s MUS: Signia™ Stapling Technology, were mechanically deconstructed to their individual raw material components to calculate the composition of each system. Total waste as well as extended resource use (the total material requirement [TMR]) were then calculated for three different surgical procedures; laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic gastric bypass, and video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) lobectomy. The differences in outcomes for SUSs versus MUSs were then calculated. RESULTS: For each surgical procedure considered, switching from a SUS to a MUS led to a reduction in total waste accumulated per procedure and TMR. Reductions in waste were 40% (sleeve gastrectomy), 70% (gastric bypass), and 62% (VATS lobectomy). The TMR reductions were higher, at 92% (sleeve gastrectomy), 96% (gastric bypass), and 95% (VATS lobectomy). Both waste and TMR reduction were realized with the MUS system as long as the reusable parts were used more than four times. This was true for all analyzed surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: Switching from a SUS to MUS facilitates a reduction in total surgical waste and TMR for sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and VATS lobectomy surgical procedures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8457861
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84578612021-09-23 Evaluating the Waste Prevention Potential of a Multi- versus Single-Use Surgical Stapler Meissner, Markus Lichtnegger, Sabrina Gibson, Scott Saunders, Rhodri Risk Manag Healthc Policy Original Research PURPOSE: Within the hospital, surgery is recognized as a resource-intensive activity that disproportionately generates large volumes of healthcare waste. Single-use, disposable medical supplies contribute substantially to this problem, and more broadly to the depletion of scarce resources. Given that many surgical procedures utilize surgical stapling techniques, this study uses surgical stapling systems as functional units for evaluating the waste prevention potential of switching from single-use systems (SUSs) to multi-use systems (MUSs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two frequently used surgical stapling systems, Ethicon’s SUS: ECHELON FLEX™ and Medtronic’s MUS: Signia™ Stapling Technology, were mechanically deconstructed to their individual raw material components to calculate the composition of each system. Total waste as well as extended resource use (the total material requirement [TMR]) were then calculated for three different surgical procedures; laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic gastric bypass, and video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) lobectomy. The differences in outcomes for SUSs versus MUSs were then calculated. RESULTS: For each surgical procedure considered, switching from a SUS to a MUS led to a reduction in total waste accumulated per procedure and TMR. Reductions in waste were 40% (sleeve gastrectomy), 70% (gastric bypass), and 62% (VATS lobectomy). The TMR reductions were higher, at 92% (sleeve gastrectomy), 96% (gastric bypass), and 95% (VATS lobectomy). Both waste and TMR reduction were realized with the MUS system as long as the reusable parts were used more than four times. This was true for all analyzed surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: Switching from a SUS to MUS facilitates a reduction in total surgical waste and TMR for sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and VATS lobectomy surgical procedures. Dove 2021-09-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8457861/ /pubmed/34566440 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S325017 Text en © 2021 Meissner et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Meissner, Markus
Lichtnegger, Sabrina
Gibson, Scott
Saunders, Rhodri
Evaluating the Waste Prevention Potential of a Multi- versus Single-Use Surgical Stapler
title Evaluating the Waste Prevention Potential of a Multi- versus Single-Use Surgical Stapler
title_full Evaluating the Waste Prevention Potential of a Multi- versus Single-Use Surgical Stapler
title_fullStr Evaluating the Waste Prevention Potential of a Multi- versus Single-Use Surgical Stapler
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating the Waste Prevention Potential of a Multi- versus Single-Use Surgical Stapler
title_short Evaluating the Waste Prevention Potential of a Multi- versus Single-Use Surgical Stapler
title_sort evaluating the waste prevention potential of a multi- versus single-use surgical stapler
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8457861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34566440
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S325017
work_keys_str_mv AT meissnermarkus evaluatingthewastepreventionpotentialofamultiversussingleusesurgicalstapler
AT lichtneggersabrina evaluatingthewastepreventionpotentialofamultiversussingleusesurgicalstapler
AT gibsonscott evaluatingthewastepreventionpotentialofamultiversussingleusesurgicalstapler
AT saundersrhodri evaluatingthewastepreventionpotentialofamultiversussingleusesurgicalstapler