ArticleJournal of industrial ecology2026
Balancing trade-offs in circular medical device design: a case study on laparoscopic devices.
Article in Journal of industrial ecology, 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
This study explores how circular design principles can be applied to single-use laparoscopic staplers to improve their carbon footprint without compromising critical requirements such as safety, performance, and financial feasibility. Using a research-through-design approach, four alternative concepts were developed: a fully recyclable device, a partially reusable device, a multifunctional device, and a manual device, aiming to reduce the carbon footprint while maintaining clinical performance of the device. Iterative design cycles incorporated feedback from Medtech professionals and from qualitative surveys with additional industry stakeholders. Fast-track life cycle assessments (LCAs) estimated environmental impact compared to the baseline device, while stakeholder feedback assessed trade-offs and synergies related to safety, usability, workflow compatibility, and regulatory compliance. Here, "trade-offs" refer to improvements in circularity coming with losses in other requirements, while "synergies" improve both circularity and other requirements together. Results revealed that each concept delivered potential carbon footprint reductions, particularly the reusable, multifunctional, and manual variants. Trade-offs included increased sterilization burden, altered surgical workflow, and reduced user familiarity; synergies included lower material and logistics costs from reuse and multifunctional design, achieved without compromising safety or usability. The findings highlight that achieving circularity in medical device design involves more than technical considerations; it requires a systems-level approach. Effective implementation depends on aligning design strategies with regulatory requirements, clinical workflows, and supply chain practices. This study provides recommendations to navigate trade-offs and identify synergies, supporting a structured approach to advancing sustainable practices in healthcare. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s44498-026-00189-8.
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.