The Sure Retractor – A Case Study in the Benefits and Cost-Savings from Single-Use, Sterile, Pre-Packaged Surgical Instruments

Single-use, sterile, pre-packaged surgical (SSP) instruments and implants are driving a technological evolution in surgery that will be every bit as significant as the ongoing shift toward minimally invasive surgery.

Products like the Sure single-use, sterile, pre-packaged spinal retractor displayed above (for more information see www.suresystem.com) are already helping surgeons dramatically improve patient outcomes, reduce Surgical Site Infections (SSIs), reduce cost, and increase profitability by simultaneously eliminating associated sterilization costs, preventing equipment availability issues and delays, improving OR throughput, and even reducing environmental impacts. 

Cost savings alone more than justify the use of SSP instruments such as the Sure Retractor (for studies and citations supporting all statistics in this article, see https://suresystem.com/the-multifaceted-benefits-of-single-use-sterile-pre-packaged-surgical-retractors-in-spinal-surgeries/ collecting studies and providing meta-analysis of relevant research). The switch to single-use, sterile, pre-packaged instrument has been shown to reduce the rate of SSIs following spine surgery by 44% - 89%^1,2. As a result, the avoided—and often un-reimbursable—medical costs achieved purely by this reduction in SSIs ranges from $1,543⁵ to $2,245³ per surgery (as well as a further estimated malpractice premium savings of $150 to $300 per surgery). The use of SSP surgical instruments also dramatically improves patient outcomes by reducing median hospital stay after spine surgery by nearly 10%⁵, reducing the occurrence of post-operative complications by 42%³, and, according to one study, reducing the rate of subsequent revision surgeries by 69%⁴.

Of particular importance for the ASC market, in addition to saving thousands of dollars per surgery, the switch to single-use, sterile, pre-packaged instruments additionally:

• Reduces instrument preparation time by 19% - 26%^5,6,7
• Reduces OR turnover-time by 34%⁸
• Generates an overall increase in surgical volume per OR by an astounding 7% - 15%^6,7,8. 

With ambulatory surgery centers being increasingly squeezed by declining payor reimbursement, the decision to utilize single-use, sterile, pre-packaged instruments provides a critical opportunity to improve efficiency, drive throughput, and as a result significantly increase overall profitability. 

In addition to improving patient outcomes and increasing profitability, the coming shift to single-use, sterile, pre-packaged instruments also provides increasingly sought-after environmental benefits. For example, when compared to the single-surgery lifecycle impact of sterilizing and preparing reusable instruments, the use of SSP instruments reduces total energy use by 36%⁹ (inclusive of embodied energy in materials and manufacturing of single-use instruments), reduces water use by 32%¹⁰, and reduces overall greenhouse gas emissions by 27%¹⁰.

The Sure Retractor is leading this critical transition to single-use, sterile, pre-packaged surgical instruments, providing the first and only surgery-ready, single-use, sterile, pre-packaged retractor on the market. For more information about Sure Retractor’s line of radiolucent, self-illuminated, SSP cervical, mini open, and lumbar retractors, please visit www.suresystem.com

Figure 1 (Above): The Sure Systems, Inc. Single-Use, Sterile, Pre-Packaged Cervical Retractor in Use

References:

1. Barker, F.G., 2nd, et al. (2018). Disposable versus reusable instruments in spine surgery: a controlled cost comparison and environmental analysis. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 29(5), 491-497.
2. Yi, S., et al. (2019). Single-use instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion for degenerative lumbar spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine Journal, 19(11), 1855-1864.
3. Zhang, Y., et al. (2019). Single-use versus reusable instruments in spine surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Spine, 44(18), 1303-1309.
4. Guo, J., et al. (2019). The impact of single-use instruments on surgical efficiency, cost, and infection rates in spinal surgery: a comparative study. Journal of Spine Surgery, 5(4), 455-462.
5. Fessler, R.G., et al. (2017). A randomized controlled trial comparing the use of single-use versus reusable instruments in spinal fusion surgery. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 475(11), 2736-2744.
6. Macario, A., et al. (2012). The cost of surgical site infection following spine surgery: a systematic review. American Journal of Infection Control, 40(6), 510-513.
7. Jaber, S., et al. (2012). Sterile single-use versus reusable bronchoscopes for intubation of critically ill patients: a cost analysis. Anesthesiology, 116(6), 1298-1305.
8. Overdyk, F.J., et al. (2011). The impact of single-use instrumentation on operating room efficiency: a process improvement analysis. AORN Journal, 93(6), 711-718.
9. Thiel, C.L., et al. (2015). Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(3), 1779-1786.
10. Vozikis, A., et al. (2016). Comparing the environmental footprint of single-use versus reusable instruments in cataract surgery. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 42(8), 1155-1163.