Reply to the Comment: Reuse of Single-Use Devices in Interventional Radiology: Indian Society of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (ISVIR) Guidelines 2025

I read with great interest the article by Singhal et al, which proposes guidelines for the reuse of single-use devices (SUDs) under the aegis of the Indian Society of Vascular and Interventional Radiology.[ 1 ] The authors' systematic approach, incorporating literature reviews, national practitioner surveys, and expert consensus, ensures that the recommendations are both rigorous and evidence-based. This work addresses a critical and long-debated gap in Indian healthcare and offers a vital framework for low- and middle-income countries striving to balance patient safety with healthcare expenditure. The guidelines clearly distinguish between reusable and non-reusable SUDs, emphasizing that economic and environmental benefits must never compromise strict validation protocols. While the authors rightly recommend using licensed reprocessing facilities, the current scarcity of such infrastructure in India highlights a significant opportunity for specialized industrial development. Until such facilities become widespread, it remains imperative that institutional standard operating procedures comply strictly with local regulatory and accreditation mandates. Furthermore, the authors address the arbitrary labeling of SUDs by manufacturers. Establishing a system in which manufacturers provide internal verification data regarding the sterility, integrity, and functionality of devices in their specification sheets would significantly enhance labeling robustness and end-user guidance. Key strengths of this study include the detailed reprocessing protocols, defined limits on reuse, and the proposal for a dual labeling and color-coded packaging system, though the latter may present implementation challenges for smaller devices. The recommendation for a dedicated “Reprocessing and Reuse Committee” within hospitals is an essential step toward ensuring compliance and departmental accountability. Additionally, the role of accreditation bodies such as Joint Commission International and National Accreditation Board for Hospitals & Healthcare Providers will be pivotal in standardizing these safe practices. Singhal et al also highlight necessary research gaps in in-vivo and in-vitro data within developing contexts. Their recommendations regarding transparent billing, ensuring that reused devices are not charged as new and the call for insurance company involvement in policy-making are particularly timely. I anticipate a broader range of possibilities, as other departments, such as Cardiology, Endoscopy units, Intensive care units, Nephrology, and Cardiothoracic Surgery, also require a similar standard of practice. In conclusion, this study provides an excellent consolidation of the SUD reprocessing debate and serves as a foundational consensus for future practice and research. Publication History Article published online: 07 July 2026 © 2026. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Limited A-13A, Graphix Tower 1, 6th floor, Sector 62, Noida 201309, Uttar Pradesh, India