Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Implant wastage in trauma and orthopaedic (T&amp;O) surgery remains an under-reported yet significant issue, contributing to rising healthcare costs and environmental concerns. With increasing surgical demand driven by an ageing population and the growing prevalence of conditions like osteoporosis, this study aimed to quantify implant wastage in T&amp;O procedures at a Level 1 Major Trauma Centre in London, assessing both its frequency and financial impact.</p> Methods <p>A retrospective cohort study was conducted on all weekday T&amp;O procedures performed between 1st December 2023 and 31st January 2024. Two of the authors identified wasted implants using intraoperative implant logbooks, and cross-referencing implant stickers with post-operative radiographs. Data pertaining to patient demographics, procedure types, surgical sites, and implant usage were collected. Cost analysis was performed using procurement data to determine the financial impact of implant wastage.</p> Results <p>Among 184 procedures analysed, 131 (71.2%) used implants, with wastage observed in 108 (82.4%) cases. A total of 141 implants were wasted, with screws accounting for 92.9% (<i>n</i> = 131) of wasted implants. Locking screws were the most frequently discarded (<i>n</i> = 65; 46.1%). Across ORIF and intramedullary nailing procedures, an overall screw wastage rate of 20% (17–31%) was observed with 2.4 screws wasted per trauma procedure. The financial cost of implant wastage over the 44-day study period amounted to approximately £335 per day and £136 per case.</p> Conclusion <p>This study highlights the substantial economic burden associated with implant wastage in T&amp;O surgery, with screws, particularly locking screws, being the primary contributors. Targeted interventions, including improved preoperative planning, precision-based implant selection, and enhanced intraoperative decision-making, are essential to reducing waste and improving cost-efficiency and sustainability in surgical practices. Further research should explore the broader economic and environmental impact of implant wastage, incorporating factors such as operative time and carbon footprint to develop comprehensive waste-reduction strategies.</p> Level of evidence <p>IV.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The cost of implant waste in trauma orthopaedic surgery and sustainability considerations: an observational study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月21日

查看全文
  • Rasi Mizori,
  • Muhayman Sadiq,
  • Yasser Al Omran,
  • Charmilie Chandrakumar,
  • Thomas Lewis,
  • Omar Musbahi,
  • Karthik Karuppaiah

摘要

Purpose

Implant wastage in trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) surgery remains an under-reported yet significant issue, contributing to rising healthcare costs and environmental concerns. With increasing surgical demand driven by an ageing population and the growing prevalence of conditions like osteoporosis, this study aimed to quantify implant wastage in T&O procedures at a Level 1 Major Trauma Centre in London, assessing both its frequency and financial impact.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on all weekday T&O procedures performed between 1st December 2023 and 31st January 2024. Two of the authors identified wasted implants using intraoperative implant logbooks, and cross-referencing implant stickers with post-operative radiographs. Data pertaining to patient demographics, procedure types, surgical sites, and implant usage were collected. Cost analysis was performed using procurement data to determine the financial impact of implant wastage.

Results

Among 184 procedures analysed, 131 (71.2%) used implants, with wastage observed in 108 (82.4%) cases. A total of 141 implants were wasted, with screws accounting for 92.9% (n = 131) of wasted implants. Locking screws were the most frequently discarded (n = 65; 46.1%). Across ORIF and intramedullary nailing procedures, an overall screw wastage rate of 20% (17–31%) was observed with 2.4 screws wasted per trauma procedure. The financial cost of implant wastage over the 44-day study period amounted to approximately £335 per day and £136 per case.

Conclusion

This study highlights the substantial economic burden associated with implant wastage in T&O surgery, with screws, particularly locking screws, being the primary contributors. Targeted interventions, including improved preoperative planning, precision-based implant selection, and enhanced intraoperative decision-making, are essential to reducing waste and improving cost-efficiency and sustainability in surgical practices. Further research should explore the broader economic and environmental impact of implant wastage, incorporating factors such as operative time and carbon footprint to develop comprehensive waste-reduction strategies.

Level of evidence

IV.