153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10281410)
1. Custom packs and cost realities.
Longo F
J Healthc Mater Manage; 1987; 5(3):47-9. PubMed ID: 10281410
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The hidden cost calculator: a new way to look at custom packs.
Harmer BA
Mater Manag Health Care; 1995 Jul; 4(7):18-9. PubMed ID: 10143817
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Reusable vs. disposable laparoscopic instruments.
Voyles CR
Bull Am Coll Surg; 1993 Sep; 78(9):38-9. PubMed ID: 10128066
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Laparoscopic instruments. Patient care, cost issues.
Reichert M
AORN J; 1993 Mar; 57(3):637-51, 654-5. PubMed ID: 8439132
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Stats. You paid what for those instruments?
Mater Manag Health Care; 2000 Dec; 9(12):28. PubMed ID: 11188028
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Endosurgery instruments: reusables vs disposables.
Patterson D
OR Manager; 1993 Jan; 9(1):1, 6-8. PubMed ID: 10123465
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Choice to reuse disposables requires factual assessment.
Reichert M
OR Manager; 1996 Jun; 12(6):8-9. PubMed ID: 10157858
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Preliminary survey findings. Reusable vs. disposable laparoscopic instruments.
Cahill N
Bull Am Coll Surg; 1993 May; 78(5):28-9. PubMed ID: 10125975
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Reusable sterile surgical packs give hospitals convenience at a low cost.
Weller C
Text Rent; 1989 Sep; 73(1):74-6, 79. PubMed ID: 10295757
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Put those nagging sterilization worries to rest, once and for all.
McCormack J
Mater Manag Health Care; 1995 Sep; 4(9):50, 52. PubMed ID: 10151140
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Why we use reusable surgical packs.
Christensen PL
Text Rent; 1984 Feb; 67(6):30-4. PubMed ID: 10264867
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Study deems single-use instruments more cost-effective than reusable in lap choly procedures.
Hosp Mater Manage; 1995 Jul; 20(7):18-9. PubMed ID: 10172368
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Cost comparison: disposable vs reusable instruments.
Fengler TW
Surg Endosc; 1997 Aug; 11(8):878-9. PubMed ID: 9266658
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Cost-minimization analysis of jumbo reusable forceps versus disposable forceps in a high-volume ambulatory endoscopy center.
Hogan RB; Santa-Cruz R; Weeks ES; Alexander L; Hogan RB
Gastrointest Endosc; 2009 Feb; 69(2):284-8. PubMed ID: 18725156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. O.R. custom packs: no easy answers.
Twomey T
Hosp Mater Manage; 1986 May; 11(5):8-13. PubMed ID: 10311582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Competition slows inflation rate for medical-surgical supplies.
Hosp Purch Manage; 1980 Dec; 5(12):15-21. PubMed ID: 10249372
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Reusable versus disposable forceps: the dilemma of cost and safety.
Gordon SJ
Gastrointest Endosc; 2000 Mar; 51(3):363-5. PubMed ID: 10699795
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Reuse of single-use only devices.
Miner N
Biomed Instrum Technol; 1999; 33(1):5-6. PubMed ID: 10067175
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
