CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 137Healthcare cost, quality, practicesHealthcare and Environmental Waste ManagementHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Operating room waste: disposable supply utilization in neurosurgical procedures

Open access
Zygourakis, Corinna C., Yoon, Seungwon, Valencia, Victoria, Boscardin, Christy, Moriates, Christopher, Gonzales, Ralph, Lawton, Michael T.·2017·Journal of neurosurgery
DOI 10.3171/2016.2.jns152442
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Disposable supplies constitute a large portion of operating room (OR) costs and are often left over at the end of a surgical case. Despite financial and environmental implications of such waste, there has been little evaluation of OR supply utilization. The goal of this study was to quantify the utilization of disposable supplies and the costs associated with opened but unused items (i.e., "waste") in neurosurgical procedures. METHODS Every disposable supply that was unused at the end of surgery was quantified through direct observation of 58 neurosurgical cases at the University of California, San Francisco, in August 2015. Item costs (in US dollars) were determined from the authors' supply catalog, and statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS Across 58 procedures (36 cranial, 22 spinal), the average cost of unused supplies was $653 (range $89-$3640, median $448, interquartile range $230-$810), or 13.1% of total surgical supply cost. Univariate analyses revealed that case type (cranial versus spinal), case category (vascular, tumor, functional, instrumented, and noninstrumented spine), and surgeon were important predictors of the percentage of unused surgical supply cost. Case length and years of surgical training did not affect the percentage of unused supply cost. Accounting for the different case distribution in the 58 selected cases, the authors estimate approximately $968 of OR waste per case, $242,968 per month, and $2.9 million per year, for their neurosurgical department. CONCLUSIONS This study shows a large variation and significant magnitude of OR waste in neurosurgical procedures. At the authors' institution, they recommend price transparency, education about OR waste to surgeons and nurses, preference card reviews, and clarification of supplies that should be opened versus available as needed to reduce waste.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3171/2016.2.jns152442

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In more developed countries, unused items and partially used items are thrown away with greater frequency.

    “In more developed countries, unused items and partially used items are thrown away with greater frequency.”

    From Improving productivity, costs and environmental impact in International Eye Health Services: using the ‘Eyefficiency’ cataract surgical services auditing tool to assess the value of cataract surgical services (2021) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Abstract says unused or partially used supplies often remain after surgery and contribute to waste. The paper studies waste at a US institution, but it does not compare countries or establish that items are discarded more frequently in more developed countries. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Farrelly et al. found that optimising paediatric surgical trays could eliminate an average of 60% of instruments.

    “Farrelly et al.(52) found that optimising paediatric surgical trays could eliminate an average of 60% of instruments”

    From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [52]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) describes a planned instrument-set review intended to eliminate operating-room waste. It does not report a finding by Farrelly et al., study paediatric surgical trays, or give a 60% reduction in instruments. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Farrelly et al. did not evaluate the effects of optimising paediatric surgical trays on carbon emissions.

    “although the effects of this on carbon emissions was not evaluated in this study”

    From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [52]

    The Conclusions describe this paper as a study of unused supplies across 58 neurosurgical cases, not an evaluation of paediatric surgical trays. Searches for Farrelly, paediatric trays, and carbon emissions found no passage addressing whether Farrelly et al. evaluated those emissions. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Zygourakis, C. C., Yoon, S., Valencia, V., Boscardin, C., Moriates, C., Gonzales, R., & Lawton, M. T.
Affiliations
  • Neurological Surgery (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • Center for Healthcare Value,
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Department of Neurological Surgery,
ORCID
Venue
Journal of neurosurgery
Publisher
Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
Published
2017-02
Volume
126
Issue
2
Pages
620-625
ISSN
  • 0022-3085 (ISSN-L)
  • 1933-0693
DOI
10.3171/2016.2.jns152442
OpenAlex
W2345577969
Cited by
137
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3
FWCI
8.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of neurosurgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of California, San Francisco
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare and Environmental Waste Management
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Keywords
operating room waste, neurosurgical procedures, supply costs, price transparency
MeSH terms
Adult, Disposable Equipment, Humans, Operating Rooms, San Francisco, Health Care Costs, Neurosurgical Procedures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review