scholarly journals Abstract No. 722 Disposable, single-use, digital endoscopes for percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy: technical success, advantages, and cost comparison

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. S311
Author(s):  
R. England ◽  
H. Singh ◽  
M. Thomas ◽  
K. Hong
Keyword(s):  
Cost Comparison ◽  
Technical Success ◽  
Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangioscopy ◽  
Single Use

scholarly journals The impact and effectiveness of the general public wearing masks to reduce the spread of pandemics in the UK: a multidisciplinary comparison of single-use masks versus reusable face masks.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayse Lisa Allison ◽  
Esther Ambrose-Dempster ◽  
Teresa Domenech Aparsi ◽  
Maria Bawn ◽  
Miguel Casas Arredondo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Material Flow ◽  
Flow Analysis ◽  
Material Flow Analysis ◽  
Plastic Waste ◽  
Cost Comparison ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
Behavioural Research ◽  
Single Use ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government has mandated the use of face masks in various public settings and recommends the use of reusable masks to combat shortages of medically graded single-use masks in healthcare. To assist decision-making on the choice of masks for future pandemics, where shortages may not be a contributing factor, the UCL Plastic Waste Innovation Hub has carried out a multidisciplinary comparison between single-use and reusable masks based on their anatomy, standalone effectiveness, behavioural considerations, environmental impacts and costs. Although current single-use masks have a higher standalone effectiveness against bacteria and viruses, studies show that reusable masks have adequate performance in slowing infection rates of respiratory viruses. Material Flow Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment and cost comparison show that reusable masks have a lower environmental and economic impact than single-use masks. If every person in the UK uses one single-use mask each day for a year, it will create a total of 124,000 tonnes of waste, 66,000 tonnes of which would be unrecyclable contaminated plastic waste (the masks), with the rest being the recyclable packaging typically used for transportation and distribution of masks.Using reusable masks creates >85% less waste, generates 3.5 times lower impact on climate change and incurs 3.7 times lower costs. Further behavioural research is necessary to understand the extent and current practices of mask use; and how these practices affect mask effectiveness in reducing infection rates. Wearing single-use masks may be preferred over reusable masks due to perceptions of increased hygiene and convenience. Understanding behaviour towards the regular machine-washing of reusable masks for their effective reuse is key to maximise their public health benefits and minimise environmental and economic costs.

Optimal safety and pooled technical success rate for ERCP performed with single-use duodenoscopes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Lisotti ◽  
Rocco Maurizio Zagari ◽  
Pietro Fusaroli ◽  
Bertrand Napoléon
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Technical Success ◽  
Technical Success Rate ◽  
Single Use

scholarly journals Single-Use Devices in Argentina: Cost Comparison Analysis of a “Re-Use” versus a “Single-Use” Policy for Trocars, Endocutters, Linear Cutters, and Harmonic Scalpels

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 89-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Osvaldo Ulises Garay ◽  
Garcia Elorrio Ezequiel ◽  
Viviana Rodríguez ◽  
Cintia Spira ◽  
Federico Augustovski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Comparison ◽  
Comparison Analysis ◽  
Single Use ◽  
Cost Comparison Analysis

Cost Comparison of Reusable and Single-Use Ultrasonic Shears for Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery

2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 512-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elliot Yung ◽  
Michel Gagner ◽  
Alfons Pomp ◽  
Gregory Dakin ◽  
Luca Milone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Cost Comparison ◽  
Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Ultrasonic Shears ◽  
Single Use

scholarly journals Cost comparison of single-use versus reusable flexible ureteroscope: A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (Supp1) ◽  
pp. S40-S45
Author(s):  
Eugenio Ventimiglia ◽  
◽  
Alvaro Jiménez Godínez ◽  
Olivier Traxer ◽  
Bhaskar K. Somani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Comparison ◽  
Flexible Ureteroscope ◽  
Single Use

scholarly journals Cost Comparison of Single-Use Versus Reusable Bronchoscopes Used for Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Sohrt ◽  
Lars Ehlers ◽  
Flemming Witt Udsen ◽  
Anders Mærkedahl ◽  
Brendan A. McGrath
Keyword(s):  
Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy ◽  
Cost Comparison ◽  
Dilatational Tracheostomy ◽  
Single Use

scholarly journals A comparative evaluation of treatment methods for bile duct stones after hepaticojejunostomy between percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy and peroral, short double-balloon enteroscopy

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koichiro Tsutsumi ◽  
Hironari Kato ◽  
Shuntaro Yabe ◽  
Sho Mizukawa ◽  
Hiroyuki Seki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bile Duct ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Bile Duct Stones ◽  
Technical Success ◽  
Double Balloon Enteroscopy ◽  
Double Balloon ◽  
Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangioscopy

Background: Bile duct stones after hepaticojejunostomy are considered a troublesome adverse event. Although percutaneous transhepatic procedures using a cholangioscopy is performed to treat these bile duct stones, a peroral endoscopic procedure using a short, double-balloon enteroscope (sDBE) is an alternative. This study aimed to compare the immediate and long-term outcomes of both treatments for bile duct stones in patients who underwent prior hepaticojejunostomy. Methods: Between October 2001 and May 2013, 40 consecutive patients were treated for bile duct stones after hepaticojejunostomy at a tertiary care hospital. Initial success with biliary access, biliary intervention-related technical success, clinical success, adverse events, hospitalization duration, and stone-free survival were retrospectively evaluated. Results: The initial success rates for biliary access were 100% (8/8) with percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy (PTCS) and 91% (29/32) with sDBE. In three patients in whom biliary access during initial sDBE failed, successful access with subsequent PTCS was achieved, and biliary intervention-related technical success and clinical success were eventually achieved in all 40 patients. The rate of adverse events was significantly lower with sDBE than with PTCS (10% versus 45%; p = 0.025). The median hospitalization duration for complete stone clearance was significantly shorter with sDBE than with PTCS (10 versus 35 days; p < 0.001). During the median 7.2 year or 3.1 year follow up, the probabilities of being stone-free at 1, 2, and 3 years were 100%, 73%, and 64% for PTCS and 85%, 65%, and 59% for sDBE, respectively ( p = 0.919). Conclusions: sDBE was useful, with few adverse events and short hospitalization; therefore, experienced endoscopists can consider it as first-line treatment for bile duct stones in patients with prior hepaticojejunostomy.

scholarly journals The impact and effectiveness of the general public wearing masks to reduce the spread of pandemics in the UK: a multidisciplinary comparison of single-use masks versus reusable face masks

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayşe Lisa Allison ◽  
Esther Ambrose-Dempster ◽  
Maria Bawn ◽  
Miguel Casas Arredondo ◽  
Charnett Chau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Flow Analysis ◽  
Material Flow Analysis ◽  
Plastic Waste ◽  
Cost Comparison ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
University College London ◽  
Single Use ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The University ◽  
The Impact

During the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the UK government mandated the use of face masks in various public settings and recommended the use of reusable masks to combat shortages of medically graded single-use masks in healthcare. To assist decision-making on the choice of masks for future pandemics, where shortages may not be a contributing factor, the University College London (UCL) Plastic Waste Innovation Hub has carried out a multidisciplinary comparison between single-use and reusable masks based on their anatomy, standalone effectiveness, behavioural considerations, environmental impact and costs. Although current single-use masks have a higher standalone effectiveness against bacteria and viruses, studies show that reusable masks have adequate performance in slowing infection rates of respiratory viruses. Material flow analysis (MFA), life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost comparison show that reusable masks have a lower environmental and economic impact than single-use masks. If every person in the UK uses one single-use mask each day for a year, it will create a total of 124,000 tonnes of waste, 66,000 tonnes of which would be unrecyclable contaminated plastic waste (the masks), with the rest being the recyclable packaging typically used for transportation and distribution of masks. Using reusable masks creates >85% less waste, generates 3.5 times lower impact on climate change and incurs 3.7 times lower costs. Further behavioural research is necessary to understand the extent and current practices of mask use; and how these practices affect mask effectiveness in reducing infection rates. Wearing single-use masks may be preferred over reusable masks due to perceptions of increased hygiene and convenience. Understanding behaviour towards the regular machine-washing of reusable masks for their effective reuse is key to maximise their public health benefits and minimise environmental and economic costs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document