Surgical endoscopy · 2026
Economic impact of disposable versus reusable instruments in minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Greve Pieter J W, Rahimi Masie, Daams Freek, Greve Jan Willem M, Bonjer Jaap H, Horeman Tim, Schijven Marlies P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the economic impact of disposable versus reusable instruments in minimally invasive surgery (MIS), and to summarize the limited available evidence on environmental impact.
BACKGROUND: The increasing use of disposable instruments in MIS has raised concerns regarding healthcare costs and environmental sustainability. While reusable instruments may reduce per-procedure costs and waste, their economic and environmental performance is influenced by procedure type, workflow, and reprocessing requirements. Evidence integrating these factors across surgical specialties remains limited.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies published since 2014 comparing disposable and reusable instruments in MIS were identified using predefined PICOS criteria. Data extraction focused on cost components, including instrument costs, sterilization, operating room time, and total procedural costs. Environmental outcomes were recorded when available.
RESULTS: Nine studies encompassing 4,724 procedures across multiple surgical specialties met inclusion criteria. In general surgery, reusable instruments were consistently associated with lower per-procedure costs, with reported savings ranging from $16 to $388. In selected subspecialties, including gynecology, thoracic surgery, and spinal surgery, disposable instruments were associated with reduced operative time, indirectly lowering total costs in specific settings. Only one included study directly assessed environmental impact, providing limited, low-level evidence that reusable instruments may confer environmental benefit primarily when used repeatedly.
CONCLUSION: Reusable instruments appear to be associated with lower per-procedure costs in general surgery, while disposable instruments may offer context-specific economic advantages in selected subspecialties. Conclusions regarding environmental impact are limited by the scarcity of primary data. Future studies incorporating standardized cost definitions and robust environmental assessments, including life-cycle analyses, are needed to support evidence-based and sustainable instrument selection in MIS.
BACKGROUND: The increasing use of disposable instruments in MIS has raised concerns regarding healthcare costs and environmental sustainability. While reusable instruments may reduce per-procedure costs and waste, their economic and environmental performance is influenced by procedure type, workflow, and reprocessing requirements. Evidence integrating these factors across surgical specialties remains limited.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies published since 2014 comparing disposable and reusable instruments in MIS were identified using predefined PICOS criteria. Data extraction focused on cost components, including instrument costs, sterilization, operating room time, and total procedural costs. Environmental outcomes were recorded when available.
RESULTS: Nine studies encompassing 4,724 procedures across multiple surgical specialties met inclusion criteria. In general surgery, reusable instruments were consistently associated with lower per-procedure costs, with reported savings ranging from $16 to $388. In selected subspecialties, including gynecology, thoracic surgery, and spinal surgery, disposable instruments were associated with reduced operative time, indirectly lowering total costs in specific settings. Only one included study directly assessed environmental impact, providing limited, low-level evidence that reusable instruments may confer environmental benefit primarily when used repeatedly.
CONCLUSION: Reusable instruments appear to be associated with lower per-procedure costs in general surgery, while disposable instruments may offer context-specific economic advantages in selected subspecialties. Conclusions regarding environmental impact are limited by the scarcity of primary data. Future studies incorporating standardized cost definitions and robust environmental assessments, including life-cycle analyses, are needed to support evidence-based and sustainable instrument selection in MIS.