236 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10172810)
21. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy lends itself well to another look at reusable vs. disposable instrument packs.
Hickey M; Fields M
Hosp Mater Manage; 1996 May; 21(5):14-5. PubMed ID: 10157583
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Reusable, re-posable and disposable instrumentation.
Melzer A; Buess G
Endosc Surg Allied Technol; 1995; 3(2-3):127-8. PubMed ID: 7552127
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Device reprocessing makes inroads in ASCs.
DeJohn P
OR Manager; 2009 May; 25(5):28-9. PubMed ID: 19517927
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Disposable versus reusable instrumentation.
Maddern GJ; Bessell JR
Endosc Surg Allied Technol; 1995; 3(2-3):125-6. PubMed ID: 7552126
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. [Cost comparison of the use of textile surgical covers and disposable surgical covers in Mainz University Clinics].
Rörig R
Unfallchirurgie; 1982 Dec; 8(6):405-7. PubMed ID: 7164194
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Disposable OR pack prices go up 5%.
Litsikas M
Hosp Mater Manage; 1991 Mar; 16(3):1, 10-1. PubMed ID: 10109816
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. ["Disposable versus reusable instruments in laparoscopic surgery--a controlled study"].
Engert K
Zentralbl Chir; 1995; 120(5):416. PubMed ID: 7610732
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. An assessment of the clinical effectiveness of surgical drapes.
Lipp A
Nurs Times; 2003 Dec 9-15; 99(49):28-31. PubMed ID: 14705343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Reuse of disposables. Reprocessing issues taking users down 'slippery slope'.
OR Manager; 1996 Jun; 12(6):1, 7. PubMed ID: 10157849
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Price survey. Endoscopic devices face price hikes.
Hosp Mater Manage; 2002 Feb; 27(2):1, 14-6. PubMed ID: 11892375
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Switch to disposable drapes saves $100,000.
Hosp Infect Control; 1979 Mar; 6(3):35. PubMed ID: 10308821
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Surgical pack prices inch up.
Barlow RD
Hosp Mater Manage; 1992 Mar; 17(3):1, 12-3. PubMed ID: 10117864
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Advantages of disposable endoscopic accessories.
Petersen BT
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am; 2000 Apr; 10(2):341-8. PubMed ID: 10683219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Reprocessing disposables: one strategy to balance cost reduction and quality patient care.
English N
Todays Surg Nurse; 1996; 18(4):23-6. PubMed ID: 8991726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Assistance systems for minimal invasive surgery].
Fischer H; Neisius B; Gumb L; Vagner J; Selig M
Biomed Tech (Berl); 1998; 43 Suppl():342-3. PubMed ID: 9859389
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Minimally invasive surgery.
Montori A
Endoscopy; 1998 Feb; 30(2):244-52. PubMed ID: 9592665
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. [Costs and advantages of non-woven disposable textiles compared to traditional reusable textiles in surgical practice].
Ducel G
Soins Chir; 1983; (28-29):59-64. PubMed ID: 6555887
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Do lap costs cut too deep? Take another look.
Shimkus J
Mater Manag Health Care; 1998 Apr; 7(4):30, 32, 34. PubMed ID: 10178838
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Reach the bottom line on reuse. Weights and balances.
Mater Manag Health Care; 1997 May; 6(5):40, 42. PubMed ID: 10167495
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Risky recycling: that "disposable" catheter may have been used before.
Hawkins D
US News World Rep; 1999 Sep; 127(11):62-4, 66-7. PubMed ID: 10621509
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
