These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
198 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29324492)
1. Life Cycle Assessment and Costing Methods for Device Procurement: Comparing Reusable and Single-Use Disposable Laryngoscopes. Sherman JD; Raibley LA; Eckelman MJ Anesth Analg; 2018 Aug; 127(2):434-443. PubMed ID: 29324492 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparative life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable laryngeal mask airways. Eckelman M; Mosher M; Gonzalez A; Sherman J Anesth Analg; 2012 May; 114(5):1067-72. PubMed ID: 22492190 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health. Landrigan PJ; Raps H; Cropper M; Bald C; Brunner M; Canonizado EM; Charles D; Chiles TC; Donohue MJ; Enck J; Fenichel P; Fleming LE; Ferrier-Pages C; Fordham R; Gozt A; Griffin C; Hahn ME; Haryanto B; Hixson R; Ianelli H; James BD; Kumar P; Laborde A; Law KL; Martin K; Mu J; Mulders Y; Mustapha A; Niu J; Pahl S; Park Y; Pedrotti ML; Pitt JA; Ruchirawat M; Seewoo BJ; Spring M; Stegeman JJ; Suk W; Symeonides C; Takada H; Thompson RC; Vicini A; Wang Z; Whitman E; Wirth D; Wolff M; Yousuf AK; Dunlop S Ann Glob Health; 2023; 89(1):23. PubMed ID: 36969097 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A life cycle assessment of reusable and single-use central venous catheter insertion kits. McGain F; McAlister S; McGavin A; Story D Anesth Analg; 2012 May; 114(5):1073-80. PubMed ID: 22492185 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A comparison of the forces exerted during laryngoscopy using disposable and non-disposable laryngoscope blades. Evans A; Vaughan RS; Hall JE; Mecklenburgh J; Wilkes AR Anaesthesia; 2003 Sep; 58(9):869-73. PubMed ID: 12911359 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Adler S; Scherrer M; Rückauer KD; Daschner FD Surg Endosc; 2005 Feb; 19(2):268-72. PubMed ID: 15580444 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use anaesthetic equipment. McGain F; Story D; Lim T; McAlister S Br J Anaesth; 2017 Jun; 118(6):862-869. PubMed ID: 28505289 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparative carbon footprint analysis of disposable and reusable vaginal specula. Donahue LM; Hilton S; Bell SG; Williams BC; Keoleian GA Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Aug; 223(2):225.e1-225.e7. PubMed ID: 32067971 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of Metal and Plastic Disposable Laryngoscope Blade with Reusable Macintosh Blade in Difficult and Inhalation Injury Airway Scenario: A Manikin Study. Moritz A; Heinrich S; Irouschek A; Birkholz T; Prottengeier J; Schmidt J J Emerg Med; 2017 Jan; 52(1):8-15. PubMed ID: 27693076 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Contamination and Disinfection of Rigid Laryngoscopes: A Literature Review. Van Wicklin SA AORN J; 2019 Jul; 110(1):49-59. PubMed ID: 31246299 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A cost analysis of reusable and disposable flexible optical scopes for intubation. Tvede MF; Kristensen MS; Nyhus-Andreasen M Acta Anaesthesiol Scand; 2012 May; 56(5):577-84. PubMed ID: 22338623 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Disposable stainless steel vs plastic laryngoscope blades among paramedics. Dos Santos FD; Schnakofsky R; Cascio A; Liu J; Merlin MA Am J Emerg Med; 2011 Jul; 29(6):590-3. PubMed ID: 20825833 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reusable laryngoscope blades: a more eco-responsible and cost-effective alternative. Rouvière N; Chkair S; Auger F; Cuvillon P; Leguelinel-Blache G; Chasseigne V Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med; 2023 Oct; 42(5):101276. PubMed ID: 37437711 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A cost and performance evaluation of disposable and reusable biopsy forceps in GI endoscopy. Yang R; Ng S; Nichol M; Laine L Gastrointest Endosc; 2000 Mar; 51(3):266-70. PubMed ID: 10699769 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A cost comparison of disposable vs reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Demoulin L; Kesteloot K; Penninckx F Surg Endosc; 1996 May; 10(5):520-5. PubMed ID: 8658331 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Systematic review of reusable versus disposable laparoscopic instruments: costs and safety. Siu J; Hill AG; MacCormick AD ANZ J Surg; 2017 Jan; 87(1-2):28-33. PubMed ID: 27878921 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Disposable laryngoscope intubation to reduce equipment failure in an emergency out of OR setting - a quality control case study. Simmons CG; Eckle T; Rogers D; Williams JD; Brainard JC BMC Anesthesiol; 2023 Jan; 23(1):16. PubMed ID: 36627551 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Does reusable mean green? Comparison of the environmental impact of reusable operating room bed covers and lift sheets versus single-use. Chang JH; Woo KP; Silva de Souza Lima Cano N; Bilec MM; Camhi M; Melnyk AI; Gross A; Walsh RM; Asfaw SH; Gordon IO; Miller BT Surgeon; 2024 Aug; 22(4):236-241. PubMed ID: 38862376 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effects of laryngoscope handle light source on the light intensity from disposable laryngoscope blades. Milne AD; Brousseau PA; Brousseau CA Anaesthesia; 2014 Dec; 69(12):1331-6. PubMed ID: 25040627 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]