Reprocessing single-use devices: an orthopaedic perspective

Use of reprocessed external fixators in orthopaedic surgery: a survey of 243 orthopaedic trauma surgeons

Background

The increasing financial burden of orthopaedic implants on our health care system has prompted cost-control measures, such as implant reprocessing. The purpose of this study was to describe the current usage by orthopaedic trauma surgeons of reprocessed external fixators (EFs) for treatment of complex fractures.

Methods

A 16-question survey about use and perceptions of reprocessed EFs was distributed to 894 Orthopaedic Trauma Association members between August 2016 and June 2017 using a web-based survey system.

Results

The authors received 243 responses (27%). Thirty-seven percent of respondents reported using reprocessed EFs. Nonprofit hospitals used reprocessed EFs more commonly than did for-profit hospitals (41% vs 15%, P = .0004). Eighty-seven percent of respondents believed reprocessing could be cost-effective. The most common reason (32%) for not using reprocessed EFs was coordination/logistics of reprocessing. Concern about litigation was also reported as a main reason for not using (20%) or having recently stopped using (21%) reprocessed EFs.

Conclusions

Many orthopaedic traumatologists are interested in the reprocessing of EF components but few have reprocessing systems in place at their institutions. A major barrier to implementation is concern about litigation, which is likely unwarranted on the basis of Food and Drug Administration approval and a lack of previous litigation. Reprocessing by the original device manufacturers has yielded substantial savings at our institution and is an example of the cost savings that can be expected when implementing an EF reprocessing system.

Analysis of usage and associated cost of external fixators at an urban level 1 trauma centre

OBJECTIVE

To determine the usage, indication, duration, and cost associated with external fixation usage. Additionally, to show the significant cost associated with external fixator use and reinvigorate discussions on external fixator reuse.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

A retrospective review of a prospectively gathered trauma database was undertaken to identify all patients treated with external fixation frames for pelvic and lower extremity injuries between September 2007 and July 2010.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

We noted the indications for frame use, and we determined the average duration of external fixation for each indication. The cost of each frame was calculated from implant records.

RESULTS

341 lower extremity and pelvic fractures were treated with external fixation frames during the study period. Of these, 92% were used as temporary external fixation. The average duration of temporary external fixation was 10.5 days. The cost of external fixation frame components was $670,805 per year. The average cost per external fixation frame was $5900.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of external fixators are intended as temporary frames, in place for a limited period of time prior to definitive fixation of skeletal injuries. As such, most frames are not intended to withstand physiologic loads, nor are they expected provide a precise maintenance of reduction. Given the considerable expense associated with external fixation frame components, the practice of purchasing external fixation frame components as disposable "single-use" items appears to be somewhat wasteful.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Reprocessed arthroscopic shavers: evaluation of sharpness and function in a cadaver model

This study was designed to test limited arthroscopic shaver reuse following reprocessing and to compare the functional performance between new and reprocessed arthroscopic shavers in arthroscopic procedures using fresh cadaveric knees. A trial using arthroscopic procedures (menisectomy, synovectomy, and debridements) was conducted by experienced surgeons using cadaveric knees to determine whether the surgeons could correctly identify reprocessed shavers. Thirty-nine shavers were tested; the surgeons were given both new and reprocessed shavers. Thirteen of the 39 shavers were new and 26 were reprocessed (13 of which had also been sharpened). The surgeons were asked to assess whether each shaver was new or reprocessed and to indicate whether the shaver was functional or not. Cadaveric shavers were subsequently used in an engineering test developed to measure shaver blade sharpness. Comparisons in sharpness were made between new and reprocessed cadaveric shaver blades. The success rate in identifying reprocessed shavers was determined to be 42% (11 of 26), with an upper confidence bound of 60%, demonstrating that the ability to detect a reprocessed shaver is no better than chance (50%), with a margin of error of 10% (P=.0328). In addition, engineering sharpness testing demonstrated that new and reprocessed cadaveric blades exhibit equivalent sharpness. Surgeons were unable to distinguish reprocessed arthroscopic shavers that passed acceptance tests from new shavers based on functional characteristics. This outcome is not unexpected due to the fact that engineering testing of shaver blades used in the study indicated that they exhibited similar sharpness.

Management of crush victims in mass disasters: highlights from recently published recommendations

Crush syndrome is the second most common cause of death after earthquakes (the first most common is direct trauma). Many logistic problems with the treatment of patients with crush syndrome are due to chaotic disaster circumstances; consequently, medical and logistic recommendations on the treatment of crush victims are needed. In a joint initiative of the Renal Disaster Relief Task Force of the International Society of Nephrology and European Renal Best Practice, a work group of nephrologists, intensivists, surgeons, and logisticians with disaster experience or experts in guideline preparation collaborated to provide comprehensive information and recommendations on the management of crush casualties considering their occurrence with "epidemic" dimensions after mass disasters. The result is the monograph "Recommendations for the Management of Crush Victims in Mass Disasters", which may help provide effective health care to disaster victims with renal problems. This article discusses medical and logistic principles of the treatment of crush victims, both at the disaster field and on admission to hospitals, and guidance is described. The importance of early fluid administration even before extrication of the victims and avoidance of potassium-containing solutions during the treatment of crush victims is underlined. Also, the logistic problems in treating crush casualties are emphasized. The most important aspects of the recently published recommendations are highlighted.

Re-use of explanted osteosynthesis devices: a reliable and inexpensive reprocessing protocol

INTRODUCTION

Orthopaedic surgical treatments emphasizing immobilization using open reduction and internal fixation with osteosynthesis devices are widely accepted for their efficacy in treating complex fractures and reducing permanent musculoskeletal deformity. However, such treatments are profoundly underutilized in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), partially due to inadequate availability of the costly osteosynthesis devices. Orthopaedic surgeons in some LMIC regularly re-use osteosynthesis devices in an effort to meet treatment demands, even though such devices typically are regulated for single-use only. The purpose of this study is to report a reprocessing protocol applied to explanted osteosynthesis devices obtained at a leading trauma care hospital.

METHODS

Explanted osteosynthesis devices were identified through a Register of Explanted Orthopaedic Prostheses. Guidelines to handle ethical issues were approved by the local Ethical Committee and informed patient consent was obtained at the time of explant surgery. Primary acceptance criteria were established and applied to osteosynthesis devices explanted between 2005 and 2008. A rigorous protocol for conducting decontamination and visual inspection based on specific screening criteria was implemented using simple equipment that is readily available in LMIC.

RESULTS

A total of 2050 osteosynthesis devices, including a large variety of plates, screws and staples, were reprocessed using the decontamination and inspection protocols. The acceptance rate was 66%. Estimated labour time and implementation time of the protocol to reprocess a typical osteosynthesis unit (1 plate and 5 screws) was 25 min, with an estimated fixed cost (in Italy) of €10 per unit for implementing the protocol, plus an additional €5 for final sterilization at the end-user hospital site.

DISCUSSION

This study was motivated by the treatment demands encountered by orthopaedic surgeons providing medical treatment in several different LMIC and their need for access to basic osteosynthesis devices. The rigorous decontamination protocol and generalized inspection criteria proved useful for efficiently screening a large volume of devices. Given that re-used osteosynthesis devices can yield satisfactory results, this study addresses potential complications of re-used devices and valid concerns that relate to patient safety. Implementing this defined reprocessing protocol into existing re-use practises in LMIC helps to limit the risks of inadequate sterilization and structural failure without adding additional risks to patients receiving re-used devices.

What is the use? An international look at reuse of single-use medical devices

Reuse of single-use devices is common in most countries worldwide. We provide an overview of the issue from an international perspective. In many developing and transitional countries reuse of cheap single-use devices (needles, syringes, surgical gloves) is common leading to large numbers of unsafe interventions, specifically injections and, as a consequence, infection with hepatitis B, C or HIV. There are various reasons for reuse: limited resources, insufficient knowledge of healthcare workers and the belief of patients that injection is more beneficial than oral medication. Reuse of cheap single-use devices should cease and both medical staff and the public should be informed about potential safety risks associated with injection. In developed countries, reuse of single-use items is less common but may include expensive technical products. Reuse is regulated in many countries (e.g. US, Canada, some European countries) demanding ethical and legal considerations, high standards of reprocessing and training of staff, risk assessment, management and validation of reprocessing. Well regulated reprocessing can decrease the number of single-use devices reprocessed. In developing as well as developed countries, a decision to reprocess single-use devices should only be made after a critical reflection of advantages and disadvantages.

Preservation, sterilization and de-epithelialization of human amniotic membrane for use in ocular surface reconstruction

In the past 20 years, human amniotic membrane (AM) has become widely used as an ophthalmic surgical patch as well as a substrate for stem cell tissue equivalents for ocular surface reconstruction. AM reduces ocular surface scarring and inflammation, and enhances epithelialization. In addition, it shows limited immunogenicity and some anti-microbial properties. Before being applied clinically, the donor of AM is required to undergo a thorough health screening and the membrane has to undergo an accepted processing routine, which includes preservation, sterilization and de-epithelialization. There have been various articles describing methods in preserving, sterilizing and de-epithelializing AM. Each preparation technique has been reported to have differential effects on the physical and biological properties of the AM. Therefore, it is difficult to establish a standardized procedure. In this review, we discuss the present techniques and several novel, new approaches in the preparation of AM for use in ocular surface reconstruction, and their impact on AM structure and biological activity.