Cargando…
Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy
BACKGROUND: Hybrid surgical instruments contain both single-use and reusable components, potentially bringing together advantages from both approaches. The environmental and financial costs of such instruments have not previously been evaluated. METHODS: We used Life Cycle Assessment to evaluate the...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9085686/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34559257 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08728-z |
_version_ | 1784703872644677632 |
---|---|
author | Rizan, Chantelle Bhutta, Mahmood F. |
author_facet | Rizan, Chantelle Bhutta, Mahmood F. |
author_sort | Rizan, Chantelle |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Hybrid surgical instruments contain both single-use and reusable components, potentially bringing together advantages from both approaches. The environmental and financial costs of such instruments have not previously been evaluated. METHODS: We used Life Cycle Assessment to evaluate the environmental impact of hybrid laparoscopic clip appliers, scissors, and ports used for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, comparing these with single-use equivalents. We modelled this using SimaPro and ReCiPe midpoint and endpoint methods to determine 18 midpoint environmental impacts including the carbon footprint, and three aggregated endpoint impacts. We also conducted life cycle cost analysis of products, taking into account unit cost, decontamination, and disposal costs. RESULTS: The environmental impact of using hybrid instruments for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy was lower than single-use equivalents across 17 midpoint environmental impacts, with mean average reductions of 60%. The carbon footprint of using hybrid versions of all three instruments was around one-quarter of single-use equivalents (1756 g vs 7194 g CO(2)e per operation) and saved an estimated 1.13 e(−5) DALYs (disability adjusted life years, 74% reduction), 2.37 e(−8) species.year (loss of local species per year, 76% reduction), and US $ 0.6 in impact on resource depletion (78% reduction). Scenario modelling indicated that environmental performance of hybrid instruments was better even if there was low number of reuses of instruments, decontamination with separate packaging of certain instruments, decontamination using fossil-fuel-rich energy sources, or changing carbon intensity of instrument transportation. Total financial cost of using a combination of hybrid laparoscopic instruments was less than half that of single-use equivalents (GBP £131 vs £282). CONCLUSION: Adoption of hybrid laparoscopic instruments could play an important role in meeting carbon reduction targets for surgery and also save money. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08728-z. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9085686 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-90856862022-05-11 Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy Rizan, Chantelle Bhutta, Mahmood F. Surg Endosc Article BACKGROUND: Hybrid surgical instruments contain both single-use and reusable components, potentially bringing together advantages from both approaches. The environmental and financial costs of such instruments have not previously been evaluated. METHODS: We used Life Cycle Assessment to evaluate the environmental impact of hybrid laparoscopic clip appliers, scissors, and ports used for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, comparing these with single-use equivalents. We modelled this using SimaPro and ReCiPe midpoint and endpoint methods to determine 18 midpoint environmental impacts including the carbon footprint, and three aggregated endpoint impacts. We also conducted life cycle cost analysis of products, taking into account unit cost, decontamination, and disposal costs. RESULTS: The environmental impact of using hybrid instruments for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy was lower than single-use equivalents across 17 midpoint environmental impacts, with mean average reductions of 60%. The carbon footprint of using hybrid versions of all three instruments was around one-quarter of single-use equivalents (1756 g vs 7194 g CO(2)e per operation) and saved an estimated 1.13 e(−5) DALYs (disability adjusted life years, 74% reduction), 2.37 e(−8) species.year (loss of local species per year, 76% reduction), and US $ 0.6 in impact on resource depletion (78% reduction). Scenario modelling indicated that environmental performance of hybrid instruments was better even if there was low number of reuses of instruments, decontamination with separate packaging of certain instruments, decontamination using fossil-fuel-rich energy sources, or changing carbon intensity of instrument transportation. Total financial cost of using a combination of hybrid laparoscopic instruments was less than half that of single-use equivalents (GBP £131 vs £282). CONCLUSION: Adoption of hybrid laparoscopic instruments could play an important role in meeting carbon reduction targets for surgery and also save money. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08728-z. Springer US 2021-09-24 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9085686/ /pubmed/34559257 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08728-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Rizan, Chantelle Bhutta, Mahmood F. Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy |
title | Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy |
title_full | Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy |
title_fullStr | Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy |
title_full_unstemmed | Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy |
title_short | Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy |
title_sort | environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9085686/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34559257 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08728-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rizanchantelle environmentalimpactandlifecyclefinancialcostofhybridreusablesingleuseinstrumentsversussingleuseequivalentsinlaparoscopiccholecystectomy AT bhuttamahmoodf environmentalimpactandlifecyclefinancialcostofhybridreusablesingleuseinstrumentsversussingleuseequivalentsinlaparoscopiccholecystectomy |