Vincent Qin, Ben LaHood, Ivo Guber, Sandro Di Simplicio Cherubini
{"title":"Estimation of the Economic and Environmental Impact of Single-Use Instruments in Routine Cataract Surgery.","authors":"Vincent Qin, Ben LaHood, Ivo Guber, Sandro Di Simplicio Cherubini","doi":"10.2147/OPTH.S467872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To estimate the economic and environmental impact of single-use instruments (SUIs) to perform standard cataract surgery in six ophthalmology centers located in Europe and in the United States.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Online survey and interview.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Comparative cost analysis based on an online survey with follow-up questionnaire and interview. The carbon footprint calculation was made by ClimatePartner.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Annual costs of reusable instruments (RUIs) were calculated based on data provided by the centers. Annual costs of SUIs were estimated based on the average-selling price of a single-use cataract set of 5 instruments and the reported annual volume of cataract surgery. The calculation carbon footprint of a cataract instrument covered the whole life cycle from production to end-of-life.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Annual costs for SUIs were found inferior or similar to the annual costs for RUIs for 4 out of the 6 centers included in this study. The centers where SUIs were demonstrated to be the most cost-effective were also associated with the highest costs of sterilization per instrument. The carbon footprint of 5-years usage of a cataract instrument was found to be 5478.2 kg CO<sub>2 eq</sub> for SUIs without recycling, 4639.9 kg CO<sub>2 eq</sub> for SUIs with recycling and 20.6 kg CO<sub>2 eq</sub> for RUIs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study demonstrated that SUIs can be an alternative solution to using RUIs in multispecialty hospitals associated with high sterilization costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":93945,"journal":{"name":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11380476/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S467872","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To estimate the economic and environmental impact of single-use instruments (SUIs) to perform standard cataract surgery in six ophthalmology centers located in Europe and in the United States.
Setting: Online survey and interview.
Design: Comparative cost analysis based on an online survey with follow-up questionnaire and interview. The carbon footprint calculation was made by ClimatePartner.
Methods: Annual costs of reusable instruments (RUIs) were calculated based on data provided by the centers. Annual costs of SUIs were estimated based on the average-selling price of a single-use cataract set of 5 instruments and the reported annual volume of cataract surgery. The calculation carbon footprint of a cataract instrument covered the whole life cycle from production to end-of-life.
Results: Annual costs for SUIs were found inferior or similar to the annual costs for RUIs for 4 out of the 6 centers included in this study. The centers where SUIs were demonstrated to be the most cost-effective were also associated with the highest costs of sterilization per instrument. The carbon footprint of 5-years usage of a cataract instrument was found to be 5478.2 kg CO2 eq for SUIs without recycling, 4639.9 kg CO2 eq for SUIs with recycling and 20.6 kg CO2 eq for RUIs.
Conclusion: The study demonstrated that SUIs can be an alternative solution to using RUIs in multispecialty hospitals associated with high sterilization costs.