Project Description
How do we know reprocessed devices are better for the climate?
Many healthcare workers want their employers to take action on climate change, recognizing a moral imperative to promote patient, public, and planetary health alike.
As part of their effort to fulfill this imperative, thousands of hospitals in over a dozen countries choose regulated, reprocessed “single-use” devices (SUDs)—together reducing hundreds of millions of pounds of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste annually.
How do they know this is working?
They look at Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs).
LCAs evaluate a product’s total environmental impact across its full life cycle, from extraction of raw materials to manufacturing, transport, use, and disposal.
Many hospital leaders regard well designed, peer-reviewed LCAs as “gold-standard” science—and LCA data can be a crucial factor in their choice to use reprocessed SUDs, according to research from Yale University.
Why are LCAs so impactful?
Unlike many research methodologies, LCAs adhere to internationally-recognized standards from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO standards require LCAs to evaluate products holistically; account for trade-offs, scale and system-wide impacts; and, often, test results against sensitivity and uncertainty analyses.
Because of these features, LCAs reliably produce transparent, decision-ready results trusted by hospitals, researchers, and regulators alike.
When making public comparisons between products, LCAs undergo ISO-required independent critical review. Most LCAs are additionally published in peer-reviewed journals.
In addition to GHG emissions, LCAs evaluate a basket of indicators (e.g., energy demand, water use, resource depletion, toxicity, waste).
While system boundaries can vary—some LCAs are cradle-to-grave, others are cradle-to-gate when appropriate—all LCAs provide a broad evaluation of a product’s total impact.
LCAs use robust methods to check their results. Sensitivity analyses probe key factors like how far a product has to be transported or what energy source is used in its manufacturing; while uncertainty analysis quantifies result variability from gaps in the data or model. Together, they show which conclusions are stable and where caution is warranted.
Transparency is also key. Primary operational data are combined with established databases (e.g., Ecoinvent) and fully referenced. Data quality assessments (age, geography, technology) and any confidentiality limits are documented.
What do LCAs show about reprocessing?
Across peer-reviewed LCAs of regulated reprocessed SUDs, reprocessed devices consistently outperform original equivalents on most environmental indicators measured—especially GHG emissions—while accounting for the impacts of reprocessing itself.
Thiel, et al. (2025) analyzes process-based LCAs comparing reprocessed and original SUDs across eight device categories. In each included study, reprocessed SUDs consistently reduced GHG emissions by 23–60%, driven by avoidance of raw material extraction and manufacturing. Key variables affecting performance included electricity sourcing, reprocessing yields, and number of cycles. Other environmental benefits were also observed, such as reductions in waste generation and broader emissions categories. The study encourages health systems to consider using reprocessed SUDs as a low-barrier, climate-positive procurement strategy.Your Content Goes Here
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Between Single-Use and Reprocessed IPC Sleeves
Lichtnegger, et al. (2023) compares the environmental impact of single-use and reprocessed intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) sleeves. The analysis follows the Environmental Footprint 3.0 method to assess impacts across 16 categories. Results show that reprocessed IPC sleeves reduce the environmental footprint in all categories, including a 40% reduction in GHG emissions and a 43% overall weighted reduction. Sensitivity analysis confirms result robustness even under variations in energy mix, ethylene oxide emissions, and transport distances. Additionally, hospital waste disposal costs dropped by 90%, highlighting both environmental and economic benefits of reprocessing in clinical settings.
Assessing Long-Term Medical Remanufacturing Emissions with Life Cycle Analysis
Meister, et al. (2022) takes a closer look at Schulte (2021) using sensitivity analysis. It compares the GHG emissions of reprocessed and original electrophysiology (EP) catheters. The study finds that reprocessing can achieve up to 60% emission reductions per use and cycle and 57% over the total lifespan of the device compared to original manufacturing. An “extensive sensitivity analysis and industry-informed buy-back scheme simulation” reveals long-term GHG emission reductions of up to 48% per remanufactured catheter life.
Schulte, et al. (2021) compares the environmental impacts of using reprocessed versus original EP catheters. The results show environmental superiority of reprocessing in 13 of 16 categories, including global warming impact reductions of more than 50%.
AMDR’s bibliography of peer-reviewed research and other scientific literature on reprocessing contains over a dozen LCAs confirming the environmental preferability of reprocessed SUDs. It includes 15 LCAs and over 30 other articles.
AMDR’s free CO₂ calculator estimates emissions reductions using LCAs of reprocessed vs. original SUDs. Try our calculator to see just how much you can help the climate by using reprocessed devices.
The science is clear: regulated reprocessing is a proven climate solution.
Let’s make it the standard end-of-life treatment for eligible devices.
