A peer-reviewed study from Western Health in Melbourne found reusable anaesthetic equipment would cost A$32,033 a year less than single-use for a six-theatre hospital, but on Australia’s power mix its carbon dioxide emissions would be 9% higher.
- Authors / organisation
- McGain F., Story D., Lim T., McAlister S.
- Year
- 2017
- Journal or publisher
- British Journal of Anaesthesia
- Study type
- Model / projection
- Evidence strength
- Evidence: High
- Sample / scope
- Life cycle assessment for an Australian hospital with six operating theatres
- Key finding
- Reusable anaesthetic equipment would cost A$32,033 a year (46%) less than single-use for a six-theatre Australian hospital, but carbon dioxide emissions would rise 9% on Australia's power mix.
- Headline number
- 46% lower cost with reusable anaesthetic equipment
- Caveats / how it is misquoted
- Modelled, not measured. The emissions result depends on the electricity supply, and water use more than doubles with reusables.
- Verified on
- 24 September 2026
Researchers from Western Health in Melbourne modelled the financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use anaesthetic equipment for an Australian hospital with six operating theatres, in a study published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia (McGain and colleagues, 2017).
Reusable equipment would cost about A$32,033 a year less: a 46% saving.
The study is honest about the trade-offs. Washing and sterilising the reusables would raise carbon dioxide emissions by 9% on Australia’s electricity mix, and more than double water use. On the UK and European power mix, the same switch would cut emissions by 84%, and on the US mix by 48%. The cleaner the electricity, the better reuse looks.
We include it because it is independent, peer-reviewed and shows the downside as well as the saving.
