用于四弧旋肩袖修复术的可重复使用器械能否降低废物处理成本并减少与废物相关的碳排放?

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-08 DOI:10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00200
Zachary Pearson, Victor Hung, Amil Agarwal, Kevin Stehlik, Andrew Harris, Uzoma Ahiarakwe, Matthew J Best
{"title":"用于四弧旋肩袖修复术的可重复使用器械能否降低废物处理成本并减少与废物相关的碳排放?","authors":"Zachary Pearson, Victor Hung, Amil Agarwal, Kevin Stehlik, Andrew Harris, Uzoma Ahiarakwe, Matthew J Best","doi":"10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Orthopaedic surgery is culpable, in part, for the excessive carbon emissions in health care partly due to the utilization of disposable instrumentation in most procedures, such as rotator cuff repair (RCR). To address growing concerns about hospital waste, some have considered replacing disposable instrumentation with reusable instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost and carbon footprint of waste disposal of RCR kits that use disposable instrumentation compared with reusable instrumentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The mass of the necessary materials and their packaging to complete a four-anchor RCR from four medical device companies that use disposable instrumentation and one that uses reusable instrumentation were recorded. Using the cost of medical waste disposal at our institution ($0.14 per kilogram) and reported values from the literature for carbon emissions produced from the low-temperature incineration of noninfectious waste (249 kgCO 2 e/t) and infectious waste (569 kgCO 2 e/t), we estimated the waste management cost and carbon footprint of waste disposal produced per RCR kit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The disposable systems of four commercial medical device companies had 783%, 570%, 1,051%, and 478%, respectively, greater mass and waste costs when compared with the reusable system. The cost of waste disposal for the reusable instrumentation system costs on average $0.14 less than the disposable instrumentation systems. The estimated contribution to the overall carbon footprint produced from the disposal of a RCR kit that uses reusable instrumentation was on average 0.37 kg CO2e less than the disposable instrumentation systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>According to our analysis, reusable instrumentation in four-anchor RCR leads to decreased waste and waste disposal costs and lower carbon emissions from waste disposal. Additional research should be done to assess the net benefit reusable systems may have on hospitals and the effect this may have on a long-term decrease in carbon footprint.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level II.</p>","PeriodicalId":51098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Reusable Instrumentation for Four-Anchor Rotator Cuff Repair Offer Decreased Waste Disposal Costs and Lower Waste-Related Carbon Emissions?\",\"authors\":\"Zachary Pearson, Victor Hung, Amil Agarwal, Kevin Stehlik, Andrew Harris, Uzoma Ahiarakwe, Matthew J Best\",\"doi\":\"10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00200\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Orthopaedic surgery is culpable, in part, for the excessive carbon emissions in health care partly due to the utilization of disposable instrumentation in most procedures, such as rotator cuff repair (RCR). To address growing concerns about hospital waste, some have considered replacing disposable instrumentation with reusable instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost and carbon footprint of waste disposal of RCR kits that use disposable instrumentation compared with reusable instrumentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The mass of the necessary materials and their packaging to complete a four-anchor RCR from four medical device companies that use disposable instrumentation and one that uses reusable instrumentation were recorded. Using the cost of medical waste disposal at our institution ($0.14 per kilogram) and reported values from the literature for carbon emissions produced from the low-temperature incineration of noninfectious waste (249 kgCO 2 e/t) and infectious waste (569 kgCO 2 e/t), we estimated the waste management cost and carbon footprint of waste disposal produced per RCR kit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The disposable systems of four commercial medical device companies had 783%, 570%, 1,051%, and 478%, respectively, greater mass and waste costs when compared with the reusable system. The cost of waste disposal for the reusable instrumentation system costs on average $0.14 less than the disposable instrumentation systems. The estimated contribution to the overall carbon footprint produced from the disposal of a RCR kit that uses reusable instrumentation was on average 0.37 kg CO2e less than the disposable instrumentation systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>According to our analysis, reusable instrumentation in four-anchor RCR leads to decreased waste and waste disposal costs and lower carbon emissions from waste disposal. Additional research should be done to assess the net benefit reusable systems may have on hospitals and the effect this may have on a long-term decrease in carbon footprint.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level II.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51098,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00200\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00200","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:骨科手术是造成医疗碳排放量过高的罪魁祸首,部分原因是在大多数手术(如肩袖修复术)中使用了一次性器械。为了解决日益严重的医院浪费问题,一些人考虑用可重复使用器械取代一次性器械。本研究旨在估算使用一次性器械与可重复使用器械的 RCR 套件在废物处理方面的成本和碳足迹:方法:记录了四家使用一次性器械的医疗器械公司和一家使用可重复使用器械的医疗器械公司完成四支架 RCR 所需的材料及其包装的质量。利用本机构的医疗废物处理成本(每公斤 0.14 美元)和文献报道的低温焚烧非感染性废物(249 kgCO2e/t)和感染性废物(569 kgCO2e/t)产生的碳排放值,我们估算了每个 RCR 套件产生的废物管理成本和废物处理碳足迹:结果:与可重复使用系统相比,四家商业医疗器械公司的一次性系统的质量和废物成本分别高出 783%、570%、1,051% 和 478%。可重复使用仪器系统的废物处理成本比一次性仪器系统平均低 0.14 美元。与一次性仪器系统相比,使用可重复使用仪器的 RCR 套件在废物处理过程中产生的碳足迹估计平均减少 0.37 千克 CO2e:根据我们的分析,在四锚 RCR 中使用可重复使用的仪器可减少废物和废物处理成本,并降低废物处理产生的碳排放量。应开展更多研究,以评估可重复使用系统对医院可能产生的净效益,以及这对长期减少碳足迹可能产生的影响:证据等级:二级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Does Reusable Instrumentation for Four-Anchor Rotator Cuff Repair Offer Decreased Waste Disposal Costs and Lower Waste-Related Carbon Emissions?

Introduction: Orthopaedic surgery is culpable, in part, for the excessive carbon emissions in health care partly due to the utilization of disposable instrumentation in most procedures, such as rotator cuff repair (RCR). To address growing concerns about hospital waste, some have considered replacing disposable instrumentation with reusable instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost and carbon footprint of waste disposal of RCR kits that use disposable instrumentation compared with reusable instrumentation.

Methods: The mass of the necessary materials and their packaging to complete a four-anchor RCR from four medical device companies that use disposable instrumentation and one that uses reusable instrumentation were recorded. Using the cost of medical waste disposal at our institution ($0.14 per kilogram) and reported values from the literature for carbon emissions produced from the low-temperature incineration of noninfectious waste (249 kgCO 2 e/t) and infectious waste (569 kgCO 2 e/t), we estimated the waste management cost and carbon footprint of waste disposal produced per RCR kit.

Results: The disposable systems of four commercial medical device companies had 783%, 570%, 1,051%, and 478%, respectively, greater mass and waste costs when compared with the reusable system. The cost of waste disposal for the reusable instrumentation system costs on average $0.14 less than the disposable instrumentation systems. The estimated contribution to the overall carbon footprint produced from the disposal of a RCR kit that uses reusable instrumentation was on average 0.37 kg CO2e less than the disposable instrumentation systems.

Conclusion: According to our analysis, reusable instrumentation in four-anchor RCR leads to decreased waste and waste disposal costs and lower carbon emissions from waste disposal. Additional research should be done to assess the net benefit reusable systems may have on hospitals and the effect this may have on a long-term decrease in carbon footprint.

Level of evidence: Level II.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
529
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons was established in the fall of 1993 by the Academy in response to its membership’s demand for a clinical review journal. Two issues were published the first year, followed by six issues yearly from 1994 through 2004. In September 2005, JAAOS began publishing monthly issues. Each issue includes richly illustrated peer-reviewed articles focused on clinical diagnosis and management. Special features in each issue provide commentary on developments in pharmacotherapeutics, materials and techniques, and computer applications.
期刊最新文献
Understanding the Influence of Single Payer Health Insurance on Socioeconomic Disparities in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) Utilization: A Transnational Analysis. Patellofemoral Instability Part II: Surgical Treatment. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline Summary Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hip. Femoral Head Fractures: Evaluation, Management, and Outcomes. Trends in Preoperative Outcome Measures From 2013 to 2021 in Patients Undergoing Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1