Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 24, 2025
Development of a Rabbit Chronic-Like Rotator Cuff Injury Model for Study of Fibrosis and Muscular Fatty Degeneration
Published on: March 31, 2023
Does Reusable Instrumentation for Four-Anchor Rotator Cuff Repair Offer Decreased Waste Disposal Costs and Lower
Zachary Pearson1, Victor Hung, Amil Agarwal
1From the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD (Pearson, Agarwal, Harris, Ahiarakwe, and Best), and the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo, MI (Hung, and Stehlik).
Introduction:
Orthopaedic surgery is culpable, in part, for the excessive carbon emissions in health care partly due to the utilization of disposable instrumentation in most procedures, such as rotator cuff repair (RCR). To address growing concerns about hospital waste, some have considered replacing disposable instrumentation with reusable instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost and carbon footprint of waste disposal of RCR kits that use disposable instrumentation compared with reusable instrumentation.
Methods:
The mass of the necessary materials and their packaging to complete a four-anchor RCR from four medical device companies that use disposable instrumentation and one that uses reusable instrumentation were recorded. Using the cost of medical waste disposal at our institution ($0.14 per kilogram) and reported values from the literature for carbon emissions produced from the low-temperature incineration of noninfectious waste (249 kgCO 2 e/t) and infectious waste (569 kgCO 2 e/t), we estimated the waste management cost and carbon footprint of waste disposal produced per RCR kit.
Results:
The disposable systems of four commercial medical device companies had 783%, 570%, 1,051%, and 478%, respectively, greater mass and waste costs when compared with the reusable system. The cost of waste disposal for the reusable instrumentation system costs on average $0.14 less than the disposable instrumentation systems. The estimated contribution to the overall carbon footprint produced from the disposal of a RCR kit that uses reusable instrumentation was on average 0.37 kg CO2e less than the disposable instrumentation systems.
Conclusion:
According to our analysis, reusable instrumentation in four-anchor RCR leads to decreased waste and waste disposal costs and lower carbon emissions from waste disposal. Additional research should be done to assess the net benefit reusable systems may have on hospitals and the effect this may have on a long-term decrease in carbon footprint.
Level Of Evidence:
Level II.
