Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:18:37.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Analysis of Reprocessing Single-Use Medical Devices: A Systematic Literature Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Philip Jacobs ,
Julie Polisena ,
David Hailey  and
Susan Lafferty
Philip Jacobs*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta
Julie Polisena
Affiliation:
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
David Hailey
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta
Susan Lafferty
Affiliation:
Regional Infection Prevention and Control Program, Capital Health, Edmonton, Alberta
*
Institute of Health Economics, 1200-10405 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T5J N4, Canada ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background.

Although an increasing number of medical devices are labeled “for single use only,” cleaning and reuse of single-use medical devices continues, because of the economic incentive. We conducted a survey of the economic literature to obtain the current evidence available and to assess the costs and benefits of reusing single-use medical devices.

Methods.

A comprehensive literature search was carried out to identify articles that compared single use and reuse of single-use medical devices and that met specific scientific criteria, including evaluation of economic outcomes. Each selected article was independently reviewed by 2 reviewers to extract cost and clinical outcome data and to assess the quality of the study.

Results.

Nine published articles met the selection criteria. The savings were about 49% of the direct cost. These savings would be offset by adverse-event costs, but none were detected. However, quality of the studies was generally poor.

Conclusions.

There is little available evidence of quality in the published literature to assess the practice of reuse of single-use medical devices. Moreover, data on clinical outcomes are missing and, where available, cannot be attributed specifically to the reuse of single-use medical devices.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , April 2008 , pp. 297 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Miller, MA, Gravel, D, Paton, S. Reuse of single-use medical devices in Canadian acute-care healthcare facilities, 2001. Can Commun Dis Rep 2001;27:193–199.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: The Agency; 2006. Available at: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf Accessed March 12, 2007.Google Scholar
3.Nanta, P, Senarat, W, Tribuddharat, C, Danchaivijitr, S. Cost-effectiveness and safety of reusable tracheal suction tubes. J Med Assoc Thai 2005;88(suppl):86–88.Google Scholar
4.Mak, KH, Eisenberg, MJ, Eccleston, DS, Brown, KJ, Ellis, SG, Topol, EJ. Cost-efficacy modeling of catheter reuse for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28:106–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Plante, S, Strauss, BH, Goulet, G, Watson, RK, Chisholm, RJ. Reuse of balloon catheters for coronary angioplasty: a potential cost-saving strategy? J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;24:1475–1481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Gundogdu, H, Ocal, K, Caglikulekci, M, Karabiber, N, Bayramoglu, E, Karahan, M. High-level disinfection with 2% alkalinized glutaraldehyde solution for reuse of laparoscopic disposable plastic trocars. J Laparoen-dosc Adv Surg Tech A 1998;8:47–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Browne, KF, Maldonado, R, Telatnik, M, Vlietstra, RE, Brenner, AS. Initial experience with reuse of coronary angioplasty catheters in the United States. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:1735–1740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Dirschl, DR, Smith, IJ. Reuse of external skeletal fixator components: effects on costs and complications. J Trauma 1998;44:855–858.Google Scholar
9.Kozarek, RA, Raltz, SL, Ball, TJ, Patterson, DJ, Brandabur, JJ. Reuse of disposable sphincterotomes for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a one-year prospective study. Gastrointest Endose 1999;49:39–42.Google Scholar
10.DesCôteaux, JG, Tye, L, Poulin, EC. Reuse of disposable laparoscopic instruments: cost analysis. Can J Surg 1996;39:133–139.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Wilcox, CM, Geels, W, Baron, TH. How many times can you reuse a “single-use” sphincterotome? A prospective evaluation. Gastrointest En-dose 1998;48:58–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Day, P. What is the evidence on the safety and effectiveness of the reuse of medical devices labelled as single-use only? [NZHTA Tech Brief Series vol 3, no 2]. Christchurch: New Zealand Health Technology Assessment (NZHTA); 2004. Available at: http://nzhta.chmeds.ac.nz/publications/ medical_devices.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2007.Google Scholar