ArticleAnaesthesia and intensive care2026
Choosing reusable operating theatre devices at an Australian health service avoids hundreds of tonnes of waste and could save millions of dollars per annum.
Article in Anaesthesia and intensive care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare services rely on large amounts of disposable medical devices, even though similar reusable devices exist. This retrospective audit of operating theatre and endoscopy procurement data across two hospitals aimed to examine the number and mass of simple single-use devices and cost (purchasing and disposal) of such devices in operating theatres where a reusable device alternative exists. This was assessed at one health service across two hospitals with a total of 19 operating theatres and five endoscopy procedure rooms. The main outcome was the number of single-use devices procured and disposed of, mass of devices procured, cost of procurement, cost of disposal, and estimated environmental impact of device procurement and disposal. In a five-year period of operating at two hospitals, 2,683,412 simple single-use devices that have a reusable alternative were purchased and disposed of, with a combined mass of 748 t, an approximate purchasing cost of A$16.1m, and an approximate disposal cost of around A$1.2m. The associated environmental impact of these devices was estimated at 3690 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent. Simple disposable medical devices in operating theatres such as bowls, jugs, drapes, gowns, scissors, towels and anaesthesia equipment produce tonnes of waste per annum, cost millions to procure and dispose of, and produce greenhouse gas emissions from production to disposal. Replacing some single-use devices with reusable alternatives presents an opportunity for health services to save money from purchasing and disposing of single-use devices, as well as reducing their waste and greenhouse gas footprint. Replacing disposable equipment with reusable equipment can divert tonnes of waste from landfill and save on procurement and disposal costs.
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.