Excess use of surgical supplies in minimally invasive benign gynecology surgery: an observational study

被引:1
|
作者
Mohr-Sasson, Aya [1 ,2 ]
Aycock, Madison [1 ]
Higgason, Noel [1 ]
Hui, Mason [1 ]
Bhalwal, Asha [1 ]
Jalloul, Randa [1 ]
Leon, Mateo G. [1 ]
Dziadek, Olivia [1 ]
Montealegre, Alvaro [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr, McGovern Med Sch, Adv Minimally Invas Gynecol Surg, Dept Obstet Gynecol & Reprod Sci, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Tel Aviv Univ, Sackler Sch Med, Tel Aviv, Israel
关键词
CLIMATE-CHANGE; WASTE; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.008
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Single-use materials and equipment are regularly opened by the surgical team during procedures but left unused, potentially resulting in superfluous costs and excess environmental waste. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the excess use of surgical supplies in minimally invasive benign gynecologic surgeries. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective observational study conducted at a university-affiliated single tertiary medical center. Designated study personnel were assigned to observe surgical procedures performed during July to September 2022. Surgical teams were observed while performing surgeries for benign indications. The teams were not informed of the purpose of the observation to avoid potential bias. Disposable materials and equipment opened during the procedure were documented. Excess supplies were defined as those opened but left unused before being discarded. Costs per item of the excess supplies were estimated on the basis of material and equipment costs provided by the hospital. RESULTS: A total of 99 surgeries were observed, including laparoscopic (32%), robotic (39%), hysteroscopic (14%), vaginal (11%), and laparotomy procedures (3%). Excess use of surgical supplies was documented in all but one procedure. The total cost across all surgeries reached $6357. The contained tissue extraction bag was the most expensive item not used (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA; $390 per unit) in 4 procedures, contributing 25.54% to the total cost. Raytec was the most common surgical waste, with a total of n=583 opened but unused (average n=5.95 per surgery). A significant difference was found in the rate of excess supplies across the surgical approaches, with robotic surgery contributing 52.19% of the total cost (P=.01). CONCLUSION: Excess use of disposable materials and equipment is common in minimally invasive benign gynecologic surgeries and contributes to superfluous costs and excess environmental waste. It is predominantly attributed to the opening of inexpensive materials that are left unused during the procedure. Increased awareness of costs and generated waste may reduce excess use of surgical supplies and should be further explored in future research.
引用
收藏
页码:273e1 / 273e7
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Retained Surgical Instrument in Minimally Invasive Surgery
    B. Devika Rani
    Swapna Jarugulla
    The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India, 2020, 70 : 248 - 249
  • [42] Minimally invasive surgical techniques - robotic surgery
    Savulescu, Florin
    Dutu, Costin
    Carlan, Cristian
    ROMANIAN JOURNAL OF MILITARY MEDICINE, 2015, 118 (03) : 5 - 8
  • [43] Retained Surgical Items and Minimally Invasive Surgery
    Verna C. Gibbs
    World Journal of Surgery, 2011, 35 : 1532 - 1539
  • [44] Perioperative and Operative Considerations for Minimally Invasive Surgery in Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
    Appelbaum, Heather
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC AND ADOLESCENT GYNECOLOGY, 2025, 38 (01) : 18 - 25
  • [45] Minimally invasive surgery in gynecology. Reconciling the past with a view to the future
    Stojko, Rafal
    Sadlocha, Marcin
    GINEKOLOGIA POLSKA, 2022, 93 (11) : 859 - 860
  • [46] Minimally Invasive Determinations of Oxygen Delivery and Consumption in Cardiac Surgery: An Observational Study
    Burtman, David T. M.
    Stolze, Annick
    Dengler, Selma E. Kaffka Genaamd
    Vonk, Alexander B. A.
    Boer, Christa
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR ANESTHESIA, 2018, 32 (03) : 1266 - 1272
  • [47] Editorial: Minimally invasive surgery in gynecology oncology: current trends and controversies
    Giannini, Andrea
    Lagana, Antonio Simone
    FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2024, 10
  • [48] In pursuit of COVID-19 surgical risk stratification to manage a limited workforce and supplies in minimally invasive surgery
    Mitura, Kryspin
    Mysliwiec, Piotr
    Rogula, Wojciech
    Solecki, Michal
    Furtak, Jaroslaw P.
    Kazanowski, Michal
    Klek, Stanislaw
    Nowakowski, Michal
    Pedziwiatr, Michal
    Zawadzki, Marek
    Wallner, Grzegorz
    Sobocki, Jacek
    VIDEOSURGERY AND OTHER MINIINVASIVE TECHNIQUES, 2020, 15 (03) : 416 - 423
  • [49] Minimally Invasive Surgery Survey: A Survey of Surgical Team Members' Perceptions for Successful Minimally Invasive Surgery
    Yurteri-Kaplan, Ladin A.
    Andriani, Leslie
    Kumar, Anagha
    Saunders, Pamela A.
    Mete, Mihriye M.
    Sokol, Andrew I.
    JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 24 (07) : 1153 - 1158
  • [50] Robotic surgery in gynecology: Has France lost its leadership in minimally invasive surgery?
    Lavoue, Vincent
    Collinet, Pierre
    Fernandez, Herve
    JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY OBSTETRICS AND HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2020, 49 (04)