Abstract:In summary, it is possible with the technology and scientific knowledge currently available to allow products intended for single use to be reprocessed using validated and certified processing procedures, while maintaining the full function and without any loss in quality. How many times a product can be re-processed must be determined separately for each individual medical technology device; it is not possible to make any kind of blanket statement as to the permissible number of cycles. This is due to the differing construction, the various combinations of materials and the diverse demands made of each device during clinical use. The exigency of the reprocessing issue is evident both to the user and the primary manufacturer. For the user, where there is a correspondingly high-quality primary product with suitably costed, technically-sound and certified reprocessing procedures, repeat usage can mean real savings while maintaining full functionality in each use. For the primary manufacturers of highly specialised instruments, only part of which can be represented by the medical facility in terms of a corresponding DRG (Diagnosis-Related Group), it is reprocessing that opens the door to widespread routine clinical use. The patient, in turn, benefits greatly from this, since his demand for medical treatment using the most up-to-date technology is taken into account. If processing complies in full with medical technology and hygiene directives, from the medical point of view (without being able to definitively evaluate each individual case using this criterion) the specific advantages of the reprocessing procedure are obvious. In order to establish broad acceptance for the purposes of good marketing, corresponding controlling and quality instruments have to be developed to allow the decision-making process regarding the permissibility of the reprocessing of a certain device and the number of times it can be reprocessed using this procedure to be made transparent.Taking this a step further, possibilities arise for the establishment of corresponding quality-assurance instruments on the part of the clinical establishments involved, within which reprocessed products, in the interest of quality assurance, can be referred back to the processor in the event of defective function and can also be removed from clinical use prior to completing the intended number of processing cycles. Furthermore, it can be assumed that the widespread use of reprocessing procedures in today's high-cost single-use medical device sector will have a long-term cost/price-regulating effect for the primary products, to the benefit of the users. Thus, the heated debate regarding the safety of processing procedures that have already been certified and validated in accordance with current industry standards should be evaluated in particular from the point of view of the justified fears of the leading manufacturers with regard to their currently established market share. From a purely surgical point of view, the reprocessing of disposable products should be welcomed as a revolution. The main criteria for surgeons and medics should always be the benefit for the patient. If the quality is ensured through corresponding processing and validation procedures based on recognised certificates, then economic arguments take precedence. Cases in which a DRG (and thus a payment calculation) does not fully cover the use of medical devices are conceivable. Withholding medically necessary services on grounds of the costs, or making these services available to a limited extent only, is not acceptable from the medical point of view and furthermore goes beyond what is ethically acceptable. Each procedure, even the systematic use of reprocessing of suitable medical technology disposable items, should, where the quality is guaranteed, be supported unequivocally. Taken a step further, this branch of the economy will have a long-lasting price-regulating effect on the primary producers market.

The cost of being clean: A cost analysis of nasopharyngoscope reprocessing techniques

Cost minimization analysis of nasopharyngoscope reprocessing in community practice

High-level endoscope disinfection processes in emerging economies: financial impact of manual process versus automated endoscope reprocessing

Processing single-use medical devices for use in surgery - importance, status quo and potential

Effectiveness of Reprocessing for Flexible Bronchoscopes and Endobronchial Ultrasound Bronchoscopes

Technical Properties and Biological Safety of Reprocessing Technique for a Handpiece of Disposable Pulsatile Lavage Device: An Experimental Study

Longitudinal assessment of reprocessing effectiveness for colonoscopes and gastroscopes: Results of visual inspections, biochemical markers, and microbial cultures

Real-time monitoring in managing the decontamination of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes

1419. Evaluation of a vaporized hydrogen peroxide sterilization technology for duodenoscopes

Cost analysis of three low-temperature sterilization systems at Saint Barnabas Medical Center

The use of rapid indicators for the detection of organic residues on clinically used gastrointestinal endoscopes with and without visually apparent debris

Gravity steam reprocessing in healthcare facilities for the reuse of N95 respirators

Infection control in the bronchoscopy suite: effective reprocessing and disinfection of reusable bronchoscopes

Costs of purchase, maintenance, microbiological control, and reprocessing of a reusable duodenoscope

To Dispose or to Reuse? Analyzing the Life Cycle Impacts and Costs of Disposal, Sterilization, and Reuse of Electrophysiological Catheters

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of O-Phthalaldehyde and Glutaraldehyde As Endoscope Disinfectors

Contamination of Disposable Distal Cap Duodenoscopes and Detachable Elevator Duodenoscopes After Reprocessing: A Randomized Trial

Decontamination of minimally invasive surgical endoscopes and accessories

Monitoring of endoscope reprocessing with an adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence method

A Cost and Waste-Savings Comparison Between Single-Use and Reusable Pulse Oximetry Sensors Across US Operating Rooms

Point of Use Treatment for Medical Devices: From Bedside to Battlefield