Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Disposable and Reusable Laryngeal Mask Airways

Abstract

The differences in environmental impacts between these devices strongly favor reusable devices. These benefits must be weighed against concerns regarding transmission of infection. Health care facilities can decrease their environmental impacts by using reusable LMAs, to a lesser extent by selecting disposable LMA models that are not made of certain plastics, and by ordering in bulk from local distributors. Certain practices would further reduce the environmental impacts of reusable LMAs, such as increasing the number of devices autoclaved in a single cycle to 10 (-25% GHG emissions) and improving the energy efficiency of the autoclaving machines by 10% (-8% GHG emissions). For both environmental and cost considerations, management and operating procedures should be put in place to ensure that reusable LMAs are not discarded prematurely.

Are new supraglottic airway devices, tracheal tubes and airway viewing devices cost‐effective?

“…A comparison of the environmental impact of life cycles of reusable and disposable SADs strongly favors the use of reusable devices . Indeed, it can be argued that the continued use of reusable products is integral to a practice of ‘Sustainable Anesthesia’ .…”

A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment between a Metered Dose Inhaler and Electric Nebulizer

“…Accordingly, there is significant opportunity for systemic improvements leading to reductions in health-related environmental impacts. In particular, routine inclusion of life cycle criteria is needed as part of device selection to account for total negative healthcare-associated impacts rather than impacts at a single point in time, e.g., during device use [6]. Unfortunately, limited research is currently available describing the environmental costs associated with the healthcare system [5].…”

Development of an Approach to Assess the Life Cycle Environmental Impacts and Costs of General Hospitals through the Analysis of a Belgian Case

“…So far, these two internationally recognized methodologies have been applied at the level of procured goods (surgical equipment, laryngeal masks, etc. ), as in Campion et al [11], Eckelman et al [12], and Stripple, Westman, and Holm [13], waste management, as in Soares et al [14] and Ali, Wang, and Chaudhry [15], and operating procedures, as in Thiel et al [16]. Harris and Fitzgerald [17] studied the LCC of various floor finishes, with the aim of comparing hard and soft flooring materials in order to inform decision makers about the long-term costs of ownership, followed by safety, durability, and aesthetic factors.…”