Economic impact of disposable versus reusable instruments in minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review

Abstract Objective To systematically evaluate the economic impact of disposable versus reusable instruments in minimally invasive surgery (MIS), and to summarize the limited available evidence on environmental impact. Background The increasing use of disposable instruments in MIS has raised concerns regarding healthcare costs and environmental sustainability. While reusable instruments may reduce per-procedure costs and waste, their economic and environmental performance is influenced by procedure type, workflow, and reprocessing requirements. Evidence integrating these factors across surgical specialties remains limited. Methods A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies published since 2014 comparing disposable and reusable instruments in MIS were identified using predefined PICOS criteria. Data extraction focused on cost components, including instrument costs, sterilization, operating room time, and total procedural costs. Environmental outcomes were recorded when available. Results Nine studies encompassing 4, 724 procedures across multiple surgical specialties met inclusion criteria. In general surgery, reusable instruments were consistently associated with lower per-procedure costs, with reported savings ranging from 16 to 388. In selected subspecialties, including gynecology, thoracic surgery, and spinal surgery, disposable instruments were associated with reduced operative time, indirectly lowering total costs in specific settings. Only one included study directly assessed environmental impact, providing limited, low-level evidence that reusable instruments may confer environmental benefit primarily when used repeatedly. Conclusion Reusable instruments appear to be associated with lower per-procedure costs in general surgery, while disposable instruments may offer context-specific economic advantages in selected subspecialties. Conclusions regarding environmental impact are limited by the scarcity of primary data. Future studies incorporating standardized cost definitions and robust environmental assessments, including life-cycle analyses, are needed to support evidence-based and sustainable instrument selection in MIS. Graphical Abstract