Skip to main content
Log in

Reusable instruments are more cost-effective than disposable instruments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Health care costs are rising rapidly, and surgeons can play a role in limiting costs of operations. Of the 600,000 cholecystectomies performed each year in the United States, approximately 80% are performed with laparoscopic technique. The purpose of this study was to compare the costs of reusable vs disposable instruments used during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

The costs to the hospital of reusable and disposable instruments were obtained. Instruments studied were the Veress needle, trocars and sleeves (two 10 mm and two 5 mm), reducers, clip appliers, and clips. In addition, the costs of sterilization and sharpening for reusable instruments were calculated. The cost of reusable instruments was based on an assumed instrument life of 100 cases.

Data from three private hospitals and a Canadian university hospital were collected and examined.

Data from the four hospitals revealed that the costs of reusable instruments per case were $46.92–$50.67. The comparable costs for disposable instruments were $385.28–$515.48. The advantage was thus $330.00–$460.00 per case. Theoretical advantages of disposable instruments such as safety, sterility, and better efficiency are not borne out in literature review. In addition, the environmental impact of increased refuse from disposable instruments could not be exactly defined.

With the consideration of significant cost savings and the absence of data demonstrating disadvantages of their use, reusable instruments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy are strongly recommended.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Apelgren KN, Scheeres D. Aortic injury: A catostrophic complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc (submitted)

  2. Bim RR, Nowicky DJ, McAlhany JC, Jr. Bouin GS, Blackhurst DW (1992) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a community hospital setting. Surg Gynecol Obstet 175: 161–166

    Google Scholar 

  3. Corson SL, Batzer FR, Gocial B, Maislin G (1989) Measurement of the force necessary for laparoscopic trocar entry. J Reprod Med 34: 282–284

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gallan JL, et al (1993) Gallstone and laparoscopic cholecystectomy—NIH consensus conference. JAMA 269: 1018–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Guidelines for preparation of laparoscopic instrumentation (1980) AORN 32: 65–76

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hidden costs an issue: Laparoscopic instrumentation. Laparoscopy in focus (1992) US Surgical Publication 1(11): 1–12

  7. Nezhat FR, Silfen SL, Evans D (1991) Comparison of direct insertion of disposable and standard reusable laparoscopic trocars and previous pneumoperitoneum with Veress needle. Obstet Gyn (1992) 78: 148–149

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Tieszen ME, Gruenberg JC (1992) A quantitative, qualitative and critical assessment of surgical waste. JAMA 267: 2765–2768

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Voyles CR, Petro AB, Meena AL, Haick AJ, Koury AM (1991) A practical approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 161: 365–370

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wagner M (1990) Environment, cost concerns spur new interest in reusables. Modern Healthcare 20(19): 46

    Google Scholar 

  11. Yuzpe AA (1990) Pneumoperitoneum needle and trocar injuries in laparoscopy. A survey on possible contributing factors and prevention. J Reprod Med 35: 485–490

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Apelgren, K.N., Blank, M.L., Slomski, C.A. et al. Reusable instruments are more cost-effective than disposable instruments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 8, 32–34 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02909490

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02909490

Key words

Navigation