新批准用于外科手术的设备的再处理能力。

Kala T. Pham , Colby J. Hyland , Andrew J. Malek , Justin M. Broyles
{"title":"新批准用于外科手术的设备的再处理能力。","authors":"Kala T. Pham ,&nbsp;Colby J. Hyland ,&nbsp;Andrew J. Malek ,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Reprocessing capabilities of newly approved devices for use in surgery\",\"authors\":\"Kala T. Pham ,&nbsp;Colby J. Hyland ,&nbsp;Andrew J. Malek ,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

导言:手术中使用的一次性医疗器械会造成环境废物并增加成本。再加工医疗器械可以降低成本,减少对环境的影响。本研究调查了新近获得 FDA 批准的手术器械的再处理能力:使用公开的 FDA Releasable 510(k) 数据库确定了 2018 年至 2023 年的器械,使用的器械产品代码为腹腔镜、普通外科和整形外科(GCJ);以及电外科(GEI)器械。根据使用情况对 GCJ 和 GEI 设备进行了分类,并提取了设备数量(总数量、单台数量和再加工数量)。成本来自公共网站:手术器械共有 658,510(k) 项申请,占申请总数的 3.8% (658/16723)。29%的GCJ器械和14%的GEI器械具备再加工能力。在 GCJ 设备中,5 台(56%)腹腔镜设备和 16 台(38%)照相机设备具有再处理功能。在 GEI 设备中,7 台(50%)腹腔镜设备和 5 台(50%)电缆设备具有再处理功能。只有一台(6%)组织消融设备具有再处理功能。GCJ 和 GEI 一次性使用器械的平均成本(分别为 11314 美元和 8554 美元)低于再处理器械(分别为 17206 美元和 16134 美元):结论:新批准的手术器械的再处理能力参差不齐,且总体有限。结论:新批准的手术器械的再处理能力参差不齐,而且总体上有限。为了在外科实践中更多地采用再处理技术,今后可能需要努力扩大新手术器械的再处理潜力。
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
Reprocessing capabilities of newly approved devices for use in surgery

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.

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
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
158
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Enhancements in artificial intelligence for medical examinations: A leap from ChatGPT 3.5 to ChatGPT 4.0 in the FRCS trauma & orthopaedics examination. A boost to concentration or a distracting noise? A systematic review of surgeon and anaesthetist perspectives of the benefit of intra-operative music. List of editors Surgeon ability to predict physical activity and sedentary time: Comparison of self-reported and measured activity Sensitivity and specificity of surgeons' intra-operative diagnosis of appendicitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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