A review of environmental and economic aspects of medical devices, illustrated with a comparative study of double-lumen tubes used for one-lung ventilation
-
Published:2022-10-03
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:1387-585X
-
Container-title:Environment, Development and Sustainability
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Environ Dev Sustain
Author:
Sørensen Birgitte LilholtORCID, Larsen Sara, Andersen Claus
Abstract
AbstractWhen health care management considers implementing a new technology such as a medical device, it is crucial to take workflow, clinical outcome, economy, and environmental impacts into consideration in the decision-making process. This study outlines the knowledge status of this complex challenge via a systematic literature review (SLR). The SLR found 133 of 1570 screened publications that covered relevant frameworks for choosing hospital equipment (i.e., related economics, life cycle assessment, waste generation and health issues). Yet, just five publications addressed choosing single-use vs. reuse of tubes or similar types of equipment by economic and environmental considerations through a systematic quantitative approach. The SLR reveals few publicly available peer-reviewed studies for the optimal sustainable choice of equipment. This study assesses environmental impacts of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as CO2-equivalents and resource consumption of a single-use double-lumen tube (DLT) combined with a reusable bronchoscope were compared to a single-use DLT with an integrated single-use camera. Camera DLTs exclude or minimize the need for a bronchoscope to verify correct tube placement during one-lung ventilation. The life cycle assessment shows that the materials and energy used and needed for personnel protective equipment and cleaning of the reusable bronchoscope contribute significantly to CO2-equivalent emissions. To ensure the sustainable choice of equipment this aspect must not be overlooked. Secondly, future reuse of plastic waste materials from the use can contribute significantly to better environmental performance.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Economics and Econometrics,Geography, Planning and Development
Reference163 articles.
1. Agrawal, D., & Tang, Z. W. (2021). Sustainability of Single-Use Endoscopes. Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 23(4), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tige.2021.06.001 2. Albert, M. G., & Rothkopf, D. M. (2015). Operating room waste reduction in plastic and hand surgery. Plastic Surgery, 23(4), 235–238. 3. Alkhamees, M. A. S., Alhamri, S., Ahmed, A., Yahya, G., Mohand, A., & Alothman, A. (2020). A prospective randomized cost analysis and comparison between reusable versus single-use cystoscopes procedure for removal of double J stent. European Urology Open Science, 19(Supplement 2), e1852. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-1683(20)33848-9 4. Alshemari, A., Breen, L., Quinn, G., & Sivarajah, U. (2020). Can we create a circular pharmaceutical supply chain (CPSC) to reduce medicines waste? Pharmacy, 8(4), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy8040221 5. Andrade, R. S., Podgaetz, E., Rueth, N. M., Majumder, K., Hall, E., Saric, C., & Thelen, L. (2014). Endobronchial Ultrasonography Versus Mediastinoscopy: A Single-Institution Cost Analysis and Waste Comparison. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 98(3), 1003–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.04.104
|
|