because they simply grabbed the package marked for the size and
type of blade they wanted instead of having to open two separate
packages. They felt the all-in-ones were much easier and more effi-
cient to use.
• Battery power. The light source depends on single-use battery
power in almost all of these products, although at least one manu-
facturer offers a rechargeable battery in a disposable case. The
battery is often included and housed in the handle. You'll see
some products described as having 30 minutes of battery life,
which sounds really limited, but usually isn't a concern for anes-
thesia providers. Realistically, during most cases, they use a laryn-
goscope for no more than 60 seconds.
• Associated costs. Although reusable scopes are much more
expensive than disposables, the product cost isn't really the prob-
lem. The real costs associated the reusable devices are with con-
stant reprocessing and sterilization — labor, materials, time, clean-
ing agents, replacement parts, reassembly, repackaging, storage and,
of course, the costs of any SSIs resulting from inadequate cleaning.
Harsh cleaning chemicals and the energy used for reprocessing have
environmental impacts as well, and of course reusable scopes will
break down over time or need to be upgraded. None of that comes
into play with single-use devices.
To help guide your decision, determine your facility's ability to
provide cost-effective sterilization and reprocessing as well as your
ability to stay on top of scope inventory. When we did our own cost-
benefit analysis, reusable laryngoscopes were the best choice for
our hospital's inpatient service line because it has a more stream-
lined reprocessing system for getting equipment from ORs to sterile
reprocessing and back to the ORs for use. In our same-day surgery
spaces, we don't have as an efficient instrument care process, so we
TB
Thinking of Buying…
8 6 • O U T PA T I E N T S U R G E R Y M A G A Z I N E • M A Y 2 0 2 0
