Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1996 May;10(5):520-5.
doi: 10.1007/BF00188399.

A cost comparison of disposable vs reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Affiliations
Comparative Study

A cost comparison of disposable vs reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

L Demoulin et al. Surg Endosc. 1996 May.

Abstract

Background: This paper compares the costs of disposable and reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods: The instrument set considered includes those instruments that are available in both a reusable and disposable form. A market study within the Belgian market was performed in order to compare purchase prices. In addition, costs of cleaning, sterilization, wrapping, maintenance, repair, and disposal of waste were calculated. The effects of reusables and disposables were examined by means of a literature overview.

Results: It was calculated that the instrument cost per procedure of a full disposable set is 7.4-27.7 times higher than the cost per procedure with reusables. In comparison with disposables, modular systems ("semidisposable") and mixed use of disposables and reusables reduce costs, but still the cost per procedure remains higher than with reusables. A sensitivity analysis confirmed that these conclusions are robust to the model assumptions. In addition, the available evidence in the literature suggests that reusables do not compromise patient or staff safety.

Conclusions: If reusables are used instead of disposables when performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, considerable savings can be achieved without compromising patient and staff safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Jul;78(1):148-50 - PubMed
    1. Surg Clin North Am. 1992 Oct;72(5):1021-32 - PubMed
    1. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1994 Dec;8(4):865-79 - PubMed
    1. Bull Am Coll Surg. 1993 Sep;78(9):38-9 - PubMed
    1. Am J Surg. 1992 Feb;163(2):221-6 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources