Disposable Gastrointestinal Scopes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopes are an essential tool in the diagnosis, screening, and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration issued a news release, recommending that duodenoscope manufacturers and health care facilities phase out fully reusable duodenoscopes with fixed endcaps in lieu of duodenoscopes that are either fully disposable or those that contain disposable endcaps. With this study, we systematically reviewed the published literature on single-use disposable gastrointestinal scopes to describe the current state of the literature and provide summary recommendations on the role of disposable gastrointestinal endoscopes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For our inclusion criteria, we searched for studies that were published in the year 2015 and afterward. We performed a literature search in PubMed using the keywords, "disposable," "reusable," "choledochoscope," "colonoscope," "duodenoscope," "esophagoscope," "gastroscope," and "sigmoidoscope." After our review, we identified our final article set, including 13 articles relating to disposable scopes, published from 2015 to 2023. RESULTS: In this review, we show 13 articles discussing the infection rate, functionality, safety, and affordability of disposable gastrointestinal scopes in comparison to reusable gastrointestinal scopes. Of the 3 articles that discussed infection rates (by Forbes and colleagues, Ridtitid and colleagues, and Ofosu and colleagues), each demonstrated a decreased risk of infection in disposable gastrointestinal scopes. Functionality was another common theme among these articles. Six articles (by Muthusamy and colleagues, Bang and colleagues, Lisotti and colleagues, Ross and colleagues, Kang and colleagues, and Forbes and colleagues) demonstrated comparable functionality of disposable scopes to reusable scopes. The most reported functionality issue in disposable scopes was decreased camera resolution. Disposable scopes also showed comparable safety profiles compared with reusable scopes. Six articles (by Kalipershad and colleagues, Muthusamy and colleagues, Bang and colleagues, Lisotti and colleagues, Luo and colleagues, and Huynh and colleagues) showed comparable rates of AEs, whereas 1 article (by Ofosu and colleagues) demonstrated increased rates of AEs with disposable scopes. Lastly, a cost analysis was looked at in 3 of the articles. Two articles (by Larsen et al and Ross and colleagues) remarked that further research is needed to understand the cost of disposable scopes, whereas 1 article (by Kang and colleagues) showed a favorable cost analysis. CONCLUSIONS: After a review of the literature published since the 2015 Food and Drug Administration safety communication, disposable scopes have been shown to be effective in decreasing infection risks while maintaining similar safety profiles to conventional reusable scopes. However, more research is required to compare disposable and reusable scopes in terms of functionality and cost-effectiveness.

[Senegal's experience with pacemakers re-use : about 161 patients at the Aristide Le Dantec university hospital center]. / Expérience du Sénégal sur les pacemakers reconditionnés : à propos de 161 patients au centre hospitalo-universitaire Aristide Le Dantec.

INTRODUCTION: The reuse pacemakers is a beneficial technique for patients in countries with a low economic standard of living where health care is almost non-existent. We offered to share the experience of Senegal on the reconditioning of pacemakers. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a retrospective study over a period from January 2015 to December 2020 including all patients who benefited from a reconditioned pacemaker for primary implantation or reimplantation. The criteria for reconditioning pacemakers are the absence of dysfunction or damage and a residual battery life of more than 5 years of the pacemaker. Refurbished pacemakers are acquired either from deceased families or from extraction centers. Sterilization is carried out using phenoxypropanol + benzalkonium chloride solution, 70% ethanol and ethylene oxide. RESULTS: We collected 161 patients during the study period, including 77 men (48%) and 84 women (52%), i.e. a M/F sex ratio of 0.94. The average age of the population was 65 years. Functional symptomatology was dominated by syncope in 54%. Electrocardiographically, 72% of patients were in complete atrioventricular block. A primary implantation was noted in 91.5% of patients. The vascular approach most used during implantation was cephalic in 49.5% of cases. In our series, we noted that 58% of patients had benefited from temporary stimulation before implantation. At implantation, single-chamber stimulation was used in 60% of patients and 46.5% of patients had programming in VVI mode. We had 5.5% major complications with 3% box infection occurring between 3 and 6 months post-implantation and 2.5% pacemaker syndrome. We noted 1 case of death linked to underlying heart disease. CONCLUSION: Reconditioning of cardiac pacemakers is a safe and beneficial therapeutic strategy for patients. In Senegal, reconditioning has shown satisfactory results. In our countries this technique can be an alternative for certain patients.

Potential health risks of microplastic fibres release from disposable surgical masks: Impact of repeated wearing and handling.

Disposable surgical masks undeniably provide important personal protection in daily life, but the potential health risks by the release of microplastic fibres from masks should command greater attention. In this study, we conducted a microplastic fibre release simulation experiment by carrying masks in a pocket and reusing them, to reveal the number and morphological changes of microfibres released. Fourier transform infrared spectrometry, scanning electron microscopy, and optical microscopy were employed to analyse the physical and chemical characteristics of the mask fibres. The results indicated that the reuse of disposable masks led to a significant release of microplastic fibres, potentially leading to their migration into the respiratory system. Furthermore, the release of microplastic fibres increased with prolonged external friction, particularly when masks were stored in pockets. The large-scale release of microplastic fibres due to mask reuse raises concerns about potential health risks to the human respiratory system. The reuse of disposable masks should be also strictly avoided in daily life in the future. Furthermore, the current study also established a robust foundation for future research endeavours on health risks associated with microplastic fibres entering the respiratory system through improper mask usage.

Investigation of Three Different UV-C Irradiation Schemes for Bacterial Decontamination of FFP2 Masks to Make Them Reusable.

The effect of filtering face piece grade 2 (FFP2) masks for infection prevention is essential in health care systems; however, it depends on supply chains. Efficient methods to reprocess FFP2 masks may be needed in disasters. Therefore, different UV-C irradiation schemes for bacterial decontamination of used FFP2 masks were investigated.Seventy-eight masks were irradiated with UV light for durations between 3 and 120 seconds and subsequently analyzed for the presence of viable bacteria on the inside. Ten masks served as the control group. Irradiation on the inside of the masks reduced bacteria in proportion to the dose, with an almost complete decontamination after 30 seconds. Outside irradiation reduced the quantity of colonies without time-dependent effects. Both sides of irradiation for a cumulated 30 seconds or more showed almost complete decontamination.Overall, this study suggests that standardized UV irradiation schemes with treatment to both sides might be an efficient and effective method for FFP2 mask decontamination in times of insufficient supplies.

A prospective, pragmatic non-inferiority study of emergency intubation success with the single-use i-view versus standard reusable video laryngoscope.

INTRODUCTION: Video laryngoscope (VL) technology improves first-pass success. The novel i-view VL device is inexpensive and disposable. We sought to determine the first-pass intubation success with the i-view VL device versus the standard reusable VL systems in routine use at each site. METHODS: We performed a prospective, pragmatic study at two major emergency departments (EDs) when VL was used. We rotated i-view versus reusable VL as the preferred device of the month based on an a priori schedule. An investigator-initiated interim analysis was performed. Our primary outcome was a first-pass success with a non-inferiority margin of 10% based on the per-protocol analysis. RESULTS: There were 93 intubations using the reusable VL devices and 81 intubations using the i-view. Our study was stopped early due to futility in reaching our predetermined non-inferiority margin. Operator and patient characteristics were similar between the two groups. The first-pass success rate for the i-view group was 69.1% compared to 84.3% for the reusable VL group. A non-inferiority analysis indicated that the difference (-15.1%) and corresponding 90% confidence limits (-25.3% to -5.0%) did not fall within the predetermined 10% non-inferiority margin. CONCLUSIONS: The i-view device failed to meet our predetermined non-inferiority margin when compared to the reusable VL systems with the study stopping early due to futility. Significant crossover occurred at the discretion of the intubating operator during the i-view month.

Perspectives on technology: Single-use catheters - evidence and environmental impact.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the data comparing single- vs multi-use catheters for clean intermittent catheterisation (CIC), consider if the widespread use of single-use catheters is warranted given the cost and environmental impact, and put forth ideas for future consideration. METHODS: A primary literature review was performed in PubMed over the past 50 years. Studies that performed comparative analysis of single- and multi-use catheters were included in our review. All studies that reported on primary data were narratively summarised. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were identified that reported on primary data comparing single- and multi-use catheters. There was no appreciable evidence suggesting reusable multi-use catheters were inferior to single-use catheters from an infection or usability standpoint. In addition, the environmental and monetary burden of single-use catheters is significant. CONCLUSIONS: The intermittent catheter landscape in the USA has a complex past: defined by policy, shaped by industry, yet characterised by a paucity of data demonstrating superiority of single-use over multi-use catheters. We believe that the aversion to reusable catheters by many patients and healthcare professionals is unwarranted, especially given the cost and environmental impact. Moving forward, better comparative data and more sustainable practices are needed.

Comparing outcomes of single-use vs reusable ureteroscopes: a systematic review and meta analysis.

Flexible ureterolithotripsy is a frequent urological procedure, usually used to remove stones from the kidney and upper ureter. Reusable uretero-scopes were the standard tool for that procedure, but recent concerns related to sterility and maintenance and repair costs created the opportunity to develop new technologies. In 2016, the first single-use digital flexible ureteroscope was introduced. Since then, other single-use ureteroscopes were developed, and studies compared them with the reusable ureteroscopes with conflicting results. The purpose of this study is to describe the literature that compares the performance of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery for urinary stones. A Systematic Review was performed in October 2022 in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA). A search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar and LILACS retrieved 10,039 articles. After screening, 12 articles were selected for the Meta-Analysis. No differences were found in stone-free rate (OR 1.31, CI 95% [0.88, 1.97]), operative time (MD 0.12, CI 95% [-5.52, 5.76]), incidence of post-operative fever (OR 0.64, CI 95% [0.22, 1.89]), or incidence of post-operative urinary tract infection (OR 0.63 CI 95% [0.30, 1.32]). No differences were observed in the studied variables. Hence, the device choice should rely on the availability, cost analysis and surgeons' preference.

Frequency of Contamination on Used Healing Abutments after Sterilization: An In Vitro Study.

PURPOSE: To determine and compare the frequency of contamination on different sites of healing abutments (HAs) after sterilization with Phloxine B dye on unused and used HAs after sterilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 HAs were divided into two test groups: (1) used and sterilized and (2) a control group (unused). The test group was evaluated for contamination after sterilization; the control group did not undergo any procedure. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 22 (IBM). Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency of contamination in the different groups and at the different HA sites. Chi-square test was used to evaluate the association of frequency of contamination with the HA site and design. The level of significance was kept at P ≤ .01. RESULTS: The test group showed more contamination compared to the control group. The most contaminated sites were the screw thread and the screwdriver engagement location. CONCLUSIONS: HA reuse is cost-effective, but cleaning and sterilization was not effective for these components; thus, HAs need to be reused with caution because they were heavily contaminated when compared to new HAs. Among the different sites, the screw thread and screwdriver engagement sites were more prone to contamination. HA type did not influence the frequency of contamination.

N95 respirator hybrid decontamination method using Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) coupled with Microwave-Generated Steam (MGS).

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has induced a critical supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) especially N95 respirators. Utilizing respirator decontamination procedures to reduce the pathogen load of a contaminated N95 respirator can be a viable solution for reuse purposes. In this study, the efficiency of a novel hybrid respirator decontamination method of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) which utilizes ultraviolet-C (UV-C) rays coupled with microwave-generated steam (MGS) against feline coronavirus (FCoV) was evaluated. The contaminated 3M 1860 respirator pieces were treated with three treatments (UVGI-only, MGS-only, and Hybrid-UVGI + MGS) with variable time. The virucidal activity was evaluated using the TCID50 method. The comparison of decontamination efficiency of the treatments indicated that the hybrid method achieved at least a pathogen log reduction of 4 logs, faster than MGS and UVGI. These data recommend that the proposed hybrid decontamination system is more effective comparatively in achieving pathogen log reduction of 4 logs.

A systematic review comparing the safety, cost and carbon footprint of disposable and reusable laparoscopic devices.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this systematic review of the literature is to compare a selection of currently utilized disposable and reusable laparoscopic medical devices in terms of safety (1st criteria), cost and carbon footprint. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was carried out on electronic databases for articles published up until 6 May 2022. The eligible works were prospective (randomized or not) or retrospective clinical or medical-economic comparative studies having compared disposable scissors, trocars, and mechanical endoscopic staplers to the same instruments in reusable. Two different independent examiners extracted the relevant data. RESULTS: Among the 2882 articles found, 156 abstracts were retained for examination. After comprehensive analysis concerning the safety and effectiveness of the instruments, we included four articles. A study on trocars highlighted increased vascular complications with disposable instruments, and another study found more perioperative incidents with a hybrid stapler as opposed to a disposable stapler. As regards cost analysis, we included 11 studies, all of which showed significantly higher costs with disposable instruments. The results of the one study on carbon footprints showed that hybrid instruments leave four times less of a carbon footprint than disposable instruments. CONCLUSION: The literature on the theme remains extremely limited. Our review demonstrated that from a medical and economic standpoint, reusable medical instruments, particularly trocars, presented appreciable advantages. While there exist few data on the ecological impact, those that do exist are unmistakably favorable to reusable instruments.

Revising a laparoscopic appendicectomy set to reduce reliance on disposable surgical instruments: supporting the transition to sustainable surgical practice.

INTRODUCTION: After excluding anaesthetic gases, around one-third of carbon emissions from surgical procedures are from consumables. This sustainable quality improvement project revised the laparoscopic appendicectomy surgical set at a large teaching hospital, with the aim of reducing unnecessary usage of disposable laparoscopic ports and surgical instruments. METHODS: A prospective audit of 25 consecutive laparoscopic appendicectomies (5% of annual appendicectomies performed at the Trust) was conducted to assess use of disposable instruments. The financial and environmental costs of the five most commonly used disposable instruments were calculated and annual cost of current practice determined. A revised surgical set was created to include additional reusable instruments and new reusable ports. A reaudit of disposable surgical instrument usage was conducted and the financial and environmental impact of the new set compared with the results from the initial audit. RESULTS: A total of 109 disposable instruments were opened in 25 appendicectomies, costing an estimated £49,656 and 692kg CO2 equivalent (CO2e) annually. Following rollout of the revised appendicectomy set, there was a significant reduction in disposable instrument usage (median four versus one instruments per case, p<0.00001). The revised set is predicted to reduce annual disposable instrument usage from 2,180 to 705 instruments (68% reduction), saving £219,452 and 3.02 tonnes CO2e over the estimated seven-year lifecycle of the reusable instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Updating a laparoscopic appendicectomy set to include additional/new reusable instruments can lead to a marked reduction in disposable surgical instrument usage. This results in significant projected financial and CO2e savings.

Perspectives on technology: to use or to reuse, that is the endoscopic question-a systematic review of single-use endoscopes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes of single-use endoscopes with those of reusable endoscopes to better define their role within urology. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases was performed. All studies comparing the clinical outcomes of participants undergoing urological procedures with single-use endoscopes to those of participants treated with reusable endoscopes were included. Results are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies in 3943 participants were identified. Six different single-use flexible ureteroscopes and two different single-use flexible cystoscopes were assessed. There were no differences in mean postoperative infection rates (4.0% vs 4.4%; P = 0.87) or overall complication rates (11.5% vs 11.9%; P = 0.88) between single-use and reusable endoscopes. For patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy there were no differences in operating time (mean difference -0.05 min; P = 0.96), length of hospital stay (LOS; mean difference 0.06 days; P = 0.18) or stone-free rate (SFR; 74% vs 74.3%; P = 0.54) between the single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope groups. CONCLUSION: This study is the largest to compare the clinical outcomes of single-use endoscopes to those of reusable endoscopes within urology, and demonstrated no difference in LOS, complication rate or SFR, with a shorter operating time associated with single-use flexible cystoscope use. It also highlights that the cost efficiency and environmental impact of single-use endoscopes is largely dependent on the caseload and reprocessing facilities available within a given institution. Urologists can therefore feel confident that whether they choose to 'use' or to 'reuse' based on the financial and environmental implications, they can do so without negatively impacting patient outcomes.

Reuse of Single-Use Devices in Endourology: A Review.

Introduction: Single-use medical devices (SUDs) are labeled for single use only, but rising health care costs along with the absence of visible deterioration in the quality of SUDs after one use have led to their reprocessing and reuse. In the past, SUDs mainly consisted of equipment such as guidewires and catheters. However, SUDs have now expanded to flexible endoscopes and energy devices that are much more expensive. Reuse of such devices raises concerns of infection transmission, safety, and lack of effectiveness. We reviewed the disinfection process, cost benefits, potential harms, and legal status of the reuse of SUDs in endourology. Materials and Methods: PUBMED, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published between 1970 and March 2023 that reported the reuse of SUDs using the search terms "reuse"; "single-use device"; "disposable medical devices"; "reprocessing of single-use device"; "endourology"; and keywords related to cost, safety, sterilization, and legal status. Online resources were found using Google search engines. Articles on cost savings, device malfunction, disinfection, or legal status in different countries were reviewed. Results and Conclusions: Reusing SUDs has financial, environmental, and practical advantages. The potential savings on medical expenses is the most compelling argument for reprocessing disposable devices. Reusing medical equipment also contributes to the reduction of toxic biodegradable waste. However, there is a scarcity of data on the safety and efficacy of reused SUDs. For patient safety and to avoid complications, the practice must be regulated with established reprocessing standards.

[Optimizing the use-by date of reusable medical devices. Experience in a healthcare establishment]. / Optimisation de la date limite d'utilisation des dispositifs médicaux réutilisables. Expérience dans un établissement de santé.

OBJECTIVES: Sterilized reusable medical devices have a use-by date, after which sterility is no longer guaranteed. There is currently no consensus on how this should be determined. The aim is to re-evaluate the expiry date of reusable medical devices, by means of a risk analysis and an assessment of the maintenance of the sterile state of reusable medical devices over time. METHODS: The risk analysis focused on the stages whose malfunction could compromise the sterility of reusable medical devices over time: packaging, transport and storage. Risk mapping was carried out in accordance with the methodology recommended by the French Health Authority. Based on standard NF EN ISO 11737, the assessment of the maintenance of the sterile state was checked on reusable medical devices after two, four and six months storage and on reusable medical devices that had expired more than a year previously. RESULTS: The risk analysis identified four failures and sixty-eight potential causes. The most sensitive stage was storage, which accounted for most of the critical and major causes. Improvement actions were proposed, such as the definition of a container maintenance plan. At the same time, 256 reusable medical devices were tested. The cultures remained sterile for all the containers, for folded products tested at 6 months and more and for the sachets tested at 2 and 4 months and at more than one year of storage. CONCLUSIONS: The DLU has been extended to 4 months for sachets, 6 months for folded products and maintained at six months for containers.

A proposed cleaning classification system for reusable medical devices to complement the Spaulding classification.

A central tenet in infection prevention is application of the Spaulding classification system for the safe use of medical devices. Initially defined in the 1950s, this system defines devices and surfaces as being critical, semi-critical or non-critical depending on how they will be used on a patient. Different levels of antimicrobial treatment, defined as various levels of disinfection or sterilization, are deemed appropriate to reduce patient risk of infection. However, a focus on microbial inactivation is insufficient to address this concern, which has been particularly highlighted in routine healthcare facility practices, emphasizing the underappreciated importance of cleaning and achieving acceptable levels of cleanliness. A deeper understanding of microbiology has evolved since the 1950s, which has led to re-evaluation of the Spaulding classification along with a commensurate emphasis on achieving appropriate cleaning. Albeit underappreciated, cleaning has always been important as the presence of residual materials on surfaces can interfere with the efficacy of the antimicrobial process to inactivate micro-organisms, as well as other risks to patients including device damage, malfunction and biocompatibility concerns. Unfortunately, this continues to be relevant, as attested by reports in the literature on the occurrence of device-related infections and outbreaks due to failures in processing expectations. This reflects, in part, increasing sophistication in device features and reuse, along with commensurate manufacturer's instructions for use. Consequently, this constitutes the first description and recommendation of a new cleaning classification system to complement use of the traditional Spaulding definitions to help address these modern-day technical and patient risk challenges. This quantitative risk-based classification system highlights the challenge of efficient cleaning based on the complexity of device features present, as an isolated variable impacting cleaning. This cleaning classification can be used in combination with the Spaulding classification to improve communication of cleaning risk of a reusable medical device between manufacturers and healthcare facilities, and improve established cleaning practices. This new cleaning classification system will also inform future creation, design thinking and commensurate innovations for the sustainable safe reuse of important medical devices.