ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2023
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Between Single-Use and Reprocessed IPC Sleeves.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The carbon footprints of single-use and reusable medical devices: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- An Efficient Screening Life Cycle Assessment Approach: Assessing the Environmental Impact of Dialysis Treatments.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Safety, cost and environmental impact of reprocessing low and moderate risk single-use medical devices: a systematic review.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2026Review
- Contribution of hospitals and clinical services to global warming: a scoping systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- An Innovative Strategy for Sustainability Assurance in Orthopedic Surgery.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Case for Hospitals to Boost Single-Use Device Reprocessing Programs.NAM perspectives · 2025Article
- Review
- Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Between Single-Use and Reprocessed IPC Sleeves [Letter].Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Towards circular healthcare: A qualitative exploration of approaches and implementation factors in Dutch hospitals.The journal of climate change and healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Healthcare has a large environmental footprint, not least due to the wide use of single-use supplies. Reprocessing of medical devices is a well-established, regulated process, and can reduce its environmental impact. This life cycle assessment (LCA) compares the environmental footprint of a single-use and a reprocessed version of otherwise identical intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) sleeves. Materials and Methods: The LCA was performed in accordance with the international standard ISO 14044 using the Environmental Footprint 3.0 (EF) method for the assessment. Data were obtained in cooperation with IPC sleeve manufacturers. Where no primary data were available, ecoinvent database records were used. The functional unit is five hospital treatments applying IPC. The robustness of the results was interrogated in sensitivity analyses of the energy mix, the ethylene oxide emissions during reprocessing, and the transport distances. The impact of waste reduction on hospital disposal costs was calculated. Results: The environmental footprint of reprocessed IPC sleeves was found to be reduced in all categories compared to single-use devices, leading to a weighted normalized reduction of 43% across all categories. In a breakdown of the LCA results, reprocessed IPC sleeves were found to reduce the carbon footprint by 40%, with the treatment of five patients with single-use IPC sleeves creating 7 kg CO Conclusion: Reprocessing of IPC sleeves provides an environmental and economic benefit in comparison to single-use devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.