Cohen J, Haber G B, Kortan P, Dorais J A, Scheider D M, Cirocco M, Habib J
Wellesley Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gastrointest Endosc. 1997 Feb;45(2):122-7. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(97)70233-5.
The impact on instrument quality and cost of the practice of reusing ERCP accessories has not been fully addressed.
Twenty-five new papillotomes and 15 new retrieval baskets were labeled and evaluated over time by staff blinded to the number of prior uses. Instruments were scored as to their function for the designated task. The cost of this practice was calculated from the purchase price of accessories and the costs of cleaning, sterilization, and disposal, and then compared with the estimated cost of a practice of one-time use of similar instruments.
Twenty-five papillotomes were used 246 times (median 8; mean 9.8). Fifteen retrieval baskets were used 193 times (median 13; mean 12.9). The median survival of both papillotomes and baskets before being considered inadequate (score < 6 out of 10) was 9 uses. There were no complications attributable to using reused equipment. The projected yearly cost savings of using reusable versus disposable instruments was $94,095 for papillotomes and $61,809 for baskets, a 475% and 322% cost reduction, respectively.
The papillotomes and baskets in this study could be reused reliably and safely multiple times, with considerable cost savings compared with the practice of using disposable instruments.
