Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FrequentSinger1661 t1_jaag5tl wrote

Most likely these are disposable instruments, not meant to be re-sterilized.

30

atomic_redneck t1_jaaltf0 wrote

Yup. I still have mine from 25 years ago. Apparently it is cheaper to make them disposable rather than having to handle contaminated material and then clean and autoclave them.

14

Chevy_Suburban t1_jabymvx wrote

How is it cheaper to give away 10+ tools than autoclaving them?

1

jimb2 t1_jac3gmv wrote

That's how it works. Those tools are basically punched out by machines, some with a bit of human finishing. Those things are ok to use, but they are not the same quality as older instruments that would last for years. Single-use instruments can be made of cheaper metal etc and won't stand up to repeated use.

Autoclaving is a slow, manual, small batch process that uses a lot of energy. If the whole process is not done carefully, infection can be spread by poorly autoclaved instruments, potentially leading to infection, harm, death and million dollar law suits. This happens. More expensive stuff is disinfected and reused, but for the simple tools, it's smarter to open a new sterile pack.

1

Bird_TheWarBearer t1_jabl4tl wrote

They are actually the kind of instruments you sterilize and re use. But likely the facility can't or won't sterilize them but instead buys new ones for each patient. Which is weird but after seeing comments I guess it's common if done in a clinic.

3