Eco-efficiency of disposable and reusable surgical instruments—a scissors case

  • Suphunnika IbbotsonEmail author
  • Tina Dettmer
  • Sami Kara
  • Christoph Herrmann



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.


Cradle-to-grave Eco-efficiency LCA LCC Surgical scissors 



Cumulative energy demand




Glass-reinforced plastics


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.


  1. Adler S, Scherrer M, Rückauer KD, Daschner FD (2005) Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 19:268–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aoe T (2007) Eco-efficiency and ecodesign in electrical and electronic products. J Clean Prod 15:1406–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apelgre KN, Blank ML, Slomski CA, Hadjis NS (1994) Reusable instruments are more cost-effective than disposable instruments for laparoscopic holecystectomy. Surg Endosc 8:32–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baykasoglu A, Dereli T, Yilankirkan N (2009) Application of cost/benefit analysis for surgical gown and drape selection: a case study. Am J Infect Control 37:215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belboom S, Renzoni R, Verjans B, Léonard A, Germain A (2011) A life cycle assessment of injectable drug primary packaging: comparing the traditional process in glass vials with the closed vial technology (polymer vials). Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanchard BS (1978) Design and manage to life cycle cost. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Portland, M/A PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Bribián IZ, Capilla AV, Usón AA (2011) Life cycle assessment of building materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build Environ 46(5):1133–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campion N, Thiel CL, DeBlois J, Woods NC, Landis AE, Bilec MM (2012) Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US. Sci Total Environ 425:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conrady J, Hillanbrand M, Myers S, Nussbaum G (2010) Reducing medical waste. AORN J 91:711–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DIN EN 285:2009-08: Sterilization—steam sterilizers—large sterilizers. German version EN 285:2006+A2:2009Google Scholar
  11. EHS Medizintechnik (2009) Aesculap SUSI-Eine Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse, Accessed 3 October 2012
  12. Environmental Protection Agency (2002) European waste catalogue and hazardous waste list. Valid from 1 January 2002, ISBN: 1-84095-083-8, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Gilden DJ, Scissors KN, Reuler JB (1992) Disposable products in the hospital waste stream. West J Med 156:269–272Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Herrmann C (2010) Ganzheitliches Life-Cycle-Management-Nachhaltigkeit und Lebenszyklusorientierung in Unternehmen. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. International Energy Agency (2010a) Electricity/heat in 2010. Accessed 4 September 2012
  18. International Energy Agency (2010b) CO2 emissions from fuel combustion highlights, 2010th edn. IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones CI, McManus MC (2010) Life-cycle assessment of 11 kV electrical overhead lines and underground cables. J Clean Prod 18:1464–1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kerr W, Ryan C (2001) Eco-efficiency gains from remanufacturing: a case study of photocopier remanufacturing at Fuji Xerox Australia. J Clean Prod 9(1):75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klar M, Haberstroh J, Timme S, Fritzsch G, Gitsch G, Denschlag D (2011) Comparison of a reusable with a disposable vessel-sealing device in a sheep model: efficacy and costs. Fertil Steril 95:795–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kummerer K, Dettenkofer M, Scherrer M (1996) Comparison of reusable and disposable laparotomy pads. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1:67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laustsen G (2007) Reduce–recycle–reuse: guidelines for promoting perioperative waste management. AORN J 85(4):717–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Mercateo (2012) Chirurgische schere bei mercateo online kaufen. Mercateo Deutschland, Accessed 28 September 2012
  28. Michelsen O, Fet AM, Dahlsrud A (2006) Eco-efficiency in extended supply chains: a case study of furniture production. J Environ Manag 79:290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Oikawa S, Ebisu K, Fuse K (2005) Fujitsu’s approach for eco-efficiency factor. Fujitsu Sci Tech J 41(2):236–241Google Scholar
  31. Overcash M (2012) A comparison of reusable and disposable perioperative textiles: sustainability state-of-the-art. Anesth Analg 114(5):1055–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Park PJ, Tahara K (2008) Quantifying producer and consumer-based eco-efficiencies for the identification of key ecodesign issues. J Clean Prod 16:95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. PRe Consultants BV (2008) SimaPro 7 user’s manual. The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  34. Rattanapana C, Suksaroj TT, Ounsaneha W (2012) Development of eco-efficiency indicators for rubber glove product by material flow analysis. Procedia - Social Behav Sci 40:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Recipe, introduction (2011) Accessed 4 September 2012
  36. Saling P, Kircherer A, Dittrich-Krämer B, Wittlinger R, Zombik W, Schmidt I, Schrott W, Schmidt S (2002) Eco-efficiency analysis by BASF: the method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(4):203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schooleman S (1993) OR industry split on merits of disposable/reusable instruments. Health Ind Today 56(5):1Google Scholar
  38. Schubert K (2009) Abfallmanagement an einem krankenhaus mit maximalversorgung - ein praxisbericht. presentation at 5. Umwelttag NRW – Bochum 15.09.2009, Accessed 28 September 2012
  39. 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
  40. Silalertruksa T, Sébastien Bonnet S, Gheewala SH (2012) Life cycle costing and externalities of palm oil biodiesel in Thailand. J Clean Prod 28:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sisolefyky J (2012) Written communication. Vanguard Integrierte Verorgungssysteme GmbH, Accessed 28 August 2012Google Scholar
  42. van Middelaar CE, Berentsen PBM, Dolman MA, de Boer IJM (2011) Eco-efficiency in the production chain of Dutch semi-hard cheese. Livest Sci 139:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vercalsteren A, Spirinckx C, Geerken T (2010) Life cycle assessment and eco-efficiency analysis of drinking cups used at public events. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. WBCSD (2000) Eco-efficiency—creating more value with less impact, ISBN 2-940240-17-5, Accessed 28 September 2012
  45. Wübbenhorst K (1984) Konzept der lebenszykluskosten. Grundlagen, Problemstellungen und technologische Zusammenhänge. Verlag für Fachliteratur Darmstadt, Darmstadt, GermanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suphunnika Ibbotson
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Tina Dettmer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Sami Kara
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Christoph Herrmann
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Joint German-Australian Research Group on Sustainable Manufacturing and Life Cycle ManagementBraunschweigGermany
  2. 2.Joint German-Australian Research Group on Sustainable Manufacturing and Life Cycle ManagementSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Sustainable Manufacturing and Life Cycle Engineering Research Group, School of Mechanical and Manufacturing EngineeringThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Product - and Life-Cycle-Management Research Group, Institute of Machine Tools and Production TechnologyTechnische Universität BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations