Eco-efficiency of disposable and reusable surgical instruments—a scissors case
- 1.1k Downloads
In recent years, the rising costs and infection control lead to an increasing use of disposable surgical instruments in daily hospital practices. Environmental impacts have risen as a result across the life cycle of plastic or stainless steel disposables. Compared with the conventional reusable products, different qualities and quantities of disposable scissors have to be taken into account. An eco-efficiency analysis can shed some light for the potential contribution of those products towards a sustainable development.
Disposable scissors made of either stainless steel or fibre-reinforced plastic were compared with reusable stainless steel scissors for 4,500 use cycles of surgical scissors used in Germany. A screening life cycle assessment (LCA) and a life cycle costing were performed by following ISO 14040 procedure and total cost of ownership (TCO) from a customer perspective, respectively. Subsequently, their results were used to conduct an eco-efficiency analysis.
Results and discussion
The screening LCA showed a clear ranking regarding the environmental impacts of the three types of scissors. The impacts of the disposable steel product exceeds those of the two others by 80 % (disposable plastic scissors) and 99 % (reusable steel scissors), respectively. Differences in TCO were smaller, however, revealing significant economic advantages of the reusable stainless steel product under the constraints and assumptions of this case study. Accordingly, the reusable stainless steel product was revealed as the most eco-efficient choice. It was followed by the plastic scissors which turned out to be significantly more environmentally sound than the disposable stainless steel scissors but also more cost-intensive.
The overall results of the study prove to be robust against variations of critical parameters for the prescribed case study. The sensitivity analyses were also conducted for LCA and TCO results. LCA results are shown to be reliable throughout all assumptions and data uncertainties. TCO results are more dependent on the choice of case study parameters whereby the price of the disposable products can severely influence the comparison of the stainless steel and the plastic scissors. The costs related to the sterilisation of the reusable product are strongly case-specific and can reduce the economic benefit of the reusable scissors to zero. Differences in environmental and economic break-even analyses underline the comparatively high share of externalised environmental costs in the case of the disposable steel product.
KeywordsCradle-to-grave Eco-efficiency LCA LCC Surgical scissors
Cumulative energy demand
Life cycle assessment
Life cycle impact assessment
Life cycle inventory
Total cost of ownership
World business council for sustainable development
World ReCiPe midpoint
World ReCiPe endpoint
The authors especially thank Jörg Sisolefsky (Vanguard Integrierte Verorgungssysteme GmbH) for his contribution to this study.
- Blanchard BS (1978) Design and manage to life cycle cost. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Portland, M/A PressGoogle Scholar
- DIN EN 285:2009-08: Sterilization—steam sterilizers—large sterilizers. German version EN 285:2006+A2:2009Google Scholar
- EHS Medizintechnik (2009) Aesculap SUSI-Eine Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse, http://www.ehs.de/home/fachdisziplinen-produkte/zentralsterilisation/aesculap-susi/susi-kosten-nutzen-analyse.html. Accessed 3 October 2012
- Environmental Protection Agency (2002) European waste catalogue and hazardous waste list. Valid from 1 January 2002, ISBN: 1-84095-083-8, IrelandGoogle Scholar
- Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H-J, Doka G, Dones R, Hischier R, Hellweg S, Nemecek T, Rebiter G, Spielmann M (2007) Overview and methodology. Final report Ecoinvent data v2.0 No.1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Gilden DJ, Scissors KN, Reuler JB (1992) Disposable products in the hospital waste stream. West J Med 156:269–272Google Scholar
- Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Schryver AD, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. VROM, The HagueGoogle Scholar
- International Energy Agency (2010a) Electricity/heat in 2010. www.iea.org/stats/index.asp. Accessed 4 September 2012
- International Energy Agency (2010b) CO2 emissions from fuel combustion highlights, 2010th edn. IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
- ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Lyrstedt F (2005) Measuring eco-efficiency by a LCC/LCA ratio an evaluation of its applicability A case study at ABB. MSc. Thesis, Chalmers University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
- McGain F, McAlister S, McGavin A, Story D (2010) The financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use plastic anaesthetic drug trays. Anaesth Intensive Care 38:538–544Google Scholar
- Mercateo (2012) Chirurgische schere bei mercateo online kaufen. Mercateo Deutschland, http://www.mercateo.com/kw/chirurgische%2820%29schere/chirurgische_schere.html. Accessed 28 September 2012
- Morrison JE, Jacobs VR (2004) Replacement of expensive, disposable instruments with old-fashioned surgical techniques for improved cost-effectiveness in laparoscopic hysterectomy. JSLS 8:201–206Google Scholar
- Oikawa S, Ebisu K, Fuse K (2005) Fujitsu’s approach for eco-efficiency factor. Fujitsu Sci Tech J 41(2):236–241Google Scholar
- PRe Consultants BV (2008) SimaPro 7 user’s manual. The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Recipe, introduction (2011) http://sites.google.com/site/lciarecipe/project-definition. Accessed 4 September 2012
- Schooleman S (1993) OR industry split on merits of disposable/reusable instruments. Health Ind Today 56(5):1Google Scholar
- Schubert K (2009) Abfallmanagement an einem krankenhaus mit maximalversorgung - ein praxisbericht. presentation at 5. Umwelttag NRW – Bochum 15.09.2009, http://www.ak-umwelt-im-krankenhaus.de/unterlagen/umwelttag/2009/Vortragsunterlagen/WS%204_5%20schubert%20Vortrag%20Bochum%2015092009.pdf. Accessed 28 September 2012
- Schulz J, Pschorn J, Kara S, Herrmann C, Ibbotson S, Dettmer T, Luger T (2011) Environmental footprint of single-use surgical instruments in comparison with multi-use surgical instruments. 18th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Braunschweig, Germany, pp 623–628Google Scholar
- Sisolefyky J (2012) Written communication. Vanguard Integrierte Verorgungssysteme GmbH, Accessed 28 August 2012Google Scholar
- WBCSD (2000) Eco-efficiency—creating more value with less impact, ISBN 2-940240-17-5, http://www.wbcsd.org/web/publications/eco_efficiency_creating_more_value.pdf. Accessed 28 September 2012
- Wübbenhorst K (1984) Konzept der lebenszykluskosten. Grundlagen, Problemstellungen und technologische Zusammenhänge. Verlag für Fachliteratur Darmstadt, Darmstadt, GermanyGoogle Scholar