Search

Background The quality of instruments and surgical expertise in minimally invasive surgery has developed markedly in the last two decades. Attention is now being turned to ways to allow surgeons to adopt more cost-effective and environmental-friendly approaches. This review explores current evidence on the cost and environmental impact of reusable versus single-use instruments. In addition, we aim to compare their quality, functionality and associated clinical outcomes. Method The Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant literature from January 2000 to May 2015. Subject headings were Equipment Reuse/, Disposable Equipment/, Cholecystectomy/, Laparoscopic/, Laparoscopy/, Surgical Instruments/, Medical Waste Disposal/, Waste Management/, Medical Waste/, Environmental Sustainability/ and Sterilization/. Results There are few objective comparative analyses between single-use versus reusable instruments. Current evidence suggests that limiting use of disposal instruments to necessity may hold both economical and environmental advantages. Theoretical advantages of single-use instruments in quality, safety, sterility, ease of use and importantly patient outcomes have rarely been examined. Cost-saving methods, environmental-friendly methods, global operative costs, hidden costs, sterilization methods and quality assurance systems vary greatly between studies making it difficult to gain an overview of the comparison between single-use and reusable instruments. Conclusions Further examination of cost comparisons between disposable and reusable instruments is necessary while externalized environmental costs, instrument function and safety are also important to consider in future studies.

Background: Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumours of the gastrointestinal tract and make up 1–2% of all gastrointestinal malignancies. Traditionally, the treatment of choice for primary disease is surgical resection; however, no single surgeon or institution gets extensive exposure to these patients so appropriate decision-making is difficult, particularly since the introduction of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib, which has become an important additional management tool. Method: All patients were diagnosed and treated for GISTs in Christchurch Hospital (Christchurch, New Zealand) between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2010. We maintain a prospective database of all patients with GISTs. Data on clinical and histopathological variables, management and survival outcomes were recorded. These were then reviewed. Results: There were 93 patients in this study. Fifty were women. Median age was 69 (interquartile range (IQR) 59–76) years. Fifty-one tumours were located in the stomach, 27 in the small bowel, six in the colon, three in the oesophagus, one in the rectum and five were extra-gastrointestinal. In total, 22 patients received imatinib therapy; four patients with metastatic disease had imatinib as sole therapy. The median follow-up was 58 (IQR 30–90) months. The 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) for the entire study population was 69% and 64%, respectively. The 5-year DFS was higher for all patients who have localized disease when compared with those who have metastatic disease (76% versus 28%, P-value 0.001). Conclusion: Surgery aiming at an R0 resection remains the mainstay of treatment. We propose the most effective way to grow the knowledge base in New Zealand is the establishment of a national register, thereby allowing better clinical decision-making by interpretation of a larger data set.