Kala T. Pham , Colby J. Hyland , Andrew J. Malek , Justin M. Broyles
{"title":"Reprocessing capabilities of newly approved devices for use in surgery","authors":"Kala T. Pham , Colby J. Hyland , Andrew J. Malek , Justin M. Broyles","doi":"10.1016/j.surge.2024.08.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Single-use medical devices used in surgery can create environmental waste and increased costs. Reprocessed medical devices may reduce cost and environmental impact. This study investigated the reprocessing capabilities of newly FDA-approved devices in surgery.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Devices were identified using the publicly-available FDA Releasable 510(k) Database from 2018 to 2023 using the instrument product codes for laparoscope, general, and plastic surgery (GCJ); and electrosurgical (GEI) devices. GCJ and GEI devices were categorized based on usage, and the number of devices (total, single, and reprocessed) were extracted. Costs were obtained from public websites.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 658,510(k) applications for surgical devices, representing 3.8 % (658/16723) of total applications. Reprocessing capabilities existed for 29 % of GCJ devices and 14 % of GEI devices. Among GCJ devices, 5 (56 %) laparoscopy and 16 (38 %) camera devices had reprocessing capabilities. For GEI devices, 7 (50 %) laparoscopic and 5 (50 %) cable devices had reprocessing capabilities. Only one (6 %) tissue ablation device had reprocessing capabilities. The average cost of GCJ and GEI single-use devices ($11314; $8554, respectively) was less than reprocessed counterparts ($17206; $16134, respectively).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Reprocessing capabilities for newly approved surgical devices are variable and overall limited. To enhance adoption of reprocessing in surgical practice, future efforts will likely be needed to expand the reprocessing potential of new surgical devices.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49463,"journal":{"name":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","volume":"22 5","pages":"Pages 262-266"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1479666X24000878","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Single-use medical devices used in surgery can create environmental waste and increased costs. Reprocessed medical devices may reduce cost and environmental impact. This study investigated the reprocessing capabilities of newly FDA-approved devices in surgery.
Methods
Devices were identified using the publicly-available FDA Releasable 510(k) Database from 2018 to 2023 using the instrument product codes for laparoscope, general, and plastic surgery (GCJ); and electrosurgical (GEI) devices. GCJ and GEI devices were categorized based on usage, and the number of devices (total, single, and reprocessed) were extracted. Costs were obtained from public websites.
Results
There were 658,510(k) applications for surgical devices, representing 3.8 % (658/16723) of total applications. Reprocessing capabilities existed for 29 % of GCJ devices and 14 % of GEI devices. Among GCJ devices, 5 (56 %) laparoscopy and 16 (38 %) camera devices had reprocessing capabilities. For GEI devices, 7 (50 %) laparoscopic and 5 (50 %) cable devices had reprocessing capabilities. Only one (6 %) tissue ablation device had reprocessing capabilities. The average cost of GCJ and GEI single-use devices ($11314; $8554, respectively) was less than reprocessed counterparts ($17206; $16134, respectively).
Conclusion
Reprocessing capabilities for newly approved surgical devices are variable and overall limited. To enhance adoption of reprocessing in surgical practice, future efforts will likely be needed to expand the reprocessing potential of new surgical devices.
期刊介绍:
Since its establishment in 2003, The Surgeon has established itself as one of the leading multidisciplinary surgical titles, both in print and online. The Surgeon is published for the worldwide surgical and dental communities. The goal of the Journal is to achieve wider national and international recognition, through a commitment to excellence in original research. In addition, both Colleges see the Journal as an important educational service, and consequently there is a particular focus on post-graduate development. Much of our educational role will continue to be achieved through publishing expanded review articles by leaders in their field.
Articles in related areas to surgery and dentistry, such as healthcare management and education, are also welcomed. We aim to educate, entertain, give insight into new surgical techniques and technology, and provide a forum for debate and discussion.