Sustainability of a medical device has not yet become a major issue in public discussions compared to other topics with impact to material performance, clinical application, production economy and environmental pollution. Due to their unique properties, polymers (plastics) allow for multiple, flexible applications in medical device technology. Polymers are part of the majority of disposable and single use medical device and contribute with 3% to the worldwide production of plastics. The global medical polymer market size was valued 19.9 billion US-$ in 2022 and its value projection for 2030 is expected to reach 43.03 billion US-$ Here, a wider concept of related sustainability is introduced for medical devices and their polymer components. A close look on medical device specification reveals that additional properties are required to provide sustainability, such as biodegradability, quality by device design (QbD), as well as an inbuild performance service for patients, healthcare professionals and healthcare providers. The increasing global numbers for chronic and non-communicable diseases require a huge demand for single use medical devices. A careful look at polymer specification and its performance properties is needed, including possible chemical modifications and degradation processes during waste disposal. Bioengineers in charge of design and production of medical devices will only be successful when they apply a holistic and interdisciplinary approach to medical device sustainability.
JonasH. The imperative of responsibility. In search of an ethics for the technological age. London: The University of Chicago Press, 1984.
5.
BoccatoCVienkenJ. Do medical devices contribute to sustainability? Environmental, Societal and Governance aspects. Int J Artif Organs.
6.
World Health Organization. Invitation to: 4. High-level Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly (HLM4) for 2025, entitled “On the road to 2025: The global NCD deadline”. 2023. https://www:WorldHealthOrganisation (accessed 5 November 2023).
7.
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, 2006.
8.
RudénCHanssonS.Registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals (REACH) is but the first step - How far will it take us? Six further steps to improve the European Chemicals Legislation. Environ Health Perspect2010; 118: 6–10.
9.
Medical Device Regulation (MDR) Official J EU (2017/745) of the European Parliament and the Council on medical devices, L117-L174, 2017.
10.
HutterJKuehnertMWallisR, et al. Acute onset of decreased vision and hearing loss traced to haemodialysis treatment with aged dialyzers. JAMA2000; 283: 2128–2134.
11.
AverbukhZMiodaiDSandbankJ, et al. Red eye syndrome: Clinical and experimental experience in a new aspect of diffuse eosinophilic infiltration?Artif Organs2001; 25: 437–440.
12.
ChengBTianJPengY, et al. Iatrogenic wounds: a common but often overlooked problem. Burns Wounds2019; 7: 18.
13.
ISO 10993-1:2021. Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process.
14.
ISO 10993-2:2022. Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 2: Animal welfare requirements.
15.
ISO 10993-3:2014. Biological evaluation of medical devices-Part 3: Tests for genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity.
16.
ISO 10993-4:2006. Biological evaluation of medical devices-Part 4: Selection of tests for interactions with blood.
17.
ISO10993-5:2009. Biological evaluation of medical devices-Part 5: Tests for in vitro cytotoxicity.
18.
US Food & Drug Administration. Use of ISO 10993-1, “Biological evaluation of medical devices – Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process”: Guidance for Industry and Food & Drug Administration Staff, 2023.
19.
ISO 14971:2019. Medical devices – Application of risk management to medical devices.
20.
VDI Gesellschaft Materials Engineering. VDI 2017 guideline on medical grade plastics, 2019.
21.
SchneidermanDHillmyerM.There is great future in sustainable polymers. Macromolecules2017; 50: 3733-3749.
22.
BressanelliGSaccaniN, et al. Towards circular economy in the household appliance industry: an overview of cases. Resources200; 9: 128.
23.
ShirazimoghaddamSAminIAlbanesJ, et al. Chemical recycling of PET by glycolysis using niobia-based catalysts. ACS Eng Au2023; 3: 37–44.
24.
DongQLeleAZhaoX, et al. Depolymerization of plastics by means of electrified spatiotemporal heating. Nature2023; 616; 488–493.
25.
LepageMSimhadriCLiuC, et al. A broadly applicable cross-linker for aliphatic polymers containing C-H bonds. Science2019; 366: 875–878.
European Union Directive. (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. Official J EU, L155/1 -L155/19, 2019.
30.
DhandapaniRKrishnanPZenniferA, et al. Additive manufacturing of biodegradable porous orthopaedic screw. Bioact Mater2020; 5: 458–467.
31.
OlivettiEJCullenJ.Toward a sustainable materials system. Science2018; 360: 1396–1398.
32.
LimX.Can the world leave “forever chemicals behind?Nature2023; 620: 24–27.
33.
BrunnHArnoldGKörnerW, et al. PFAS: forever chemicals - persistent, bio-accumulative, and mobile. Environ Sci Eur2023; 35(1): 20.
Polaris Market Research. Medical tubing market size global report, 2022–2030, New York: USA, 2023.
36.
Global Market Insights. Medical gloves market by product; forecast 2022–2030. Global Market Insights, 2022). Selbyville, Delaware, USA: Global Market Insights Inc.
37.
PiccoliGBNazhaMFerraresiM, et al. Eco-dialysis: the financial and ecological costs of dialysis waste products: is a ‘cradle-to- cradle’ model feasible for planet-friendly haemodialysis waste management?Nephrol Dial Transplant2015; 30: 1018–1027.
38.
SibbelSHuntALaplanteS, et al. Comparative effectiveness of dialyzers: a longitudinal, propensity score-matched study of incident hemodialysis patients. ASAIO J2016; 62: 613–622.
39.
ArianoRFineASitarD, et al. Adequacy of a Vancomycin dosing regimen in patients receiving high-flux hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis2005; 46: 681–687.
40.
StefaninGHolmesD.Drug-eluting coronary artery stents. New Engl J Med2013; 368: 254–265.
41.
VarcoeRDeRubertisBKolluriR, et al. Drug-eluting resorbable scaffold vs angioplasty for infrapopliteal artery disease. New Engl J Med2024; 390: 9–19.
42.
OlsonD.Biologically active heparin coating in medical devices. Intern J Artif Organs1991; 14: 453–456.
43.
DingYYangMYangZ, et al. Cooperative control of blood compatibility and re-endothelialization by immobilized heparin and substrate topography. Acta Biomater2015; 15: 150–163.
44.
KosterALoebeMSodianR, et al. Heparin antibodies and thromboembolism in heparin-coated and non-coated ventricular assist devices. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2001; 121: 331–335.
45.
DesormaisAMoreauMLepageY, et al. The effect of electronegativity and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition on the kinin-forming capacity of polyacrylonitrile dialysis membranes. Biomaterials2008; 29: 1139–1146.
46.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH. Arelix®ACE (Ramipril®) Package information leaflet, 2018.
47.
VienkenCGattiEVienkenJ.Reimbursement systems for healthcare: considerations on “Pay-for-Performance”. In: BoccatoCCeruttiSVienkenJ(eds) Medical devices, improving healthcare through a multidisciplinary approach. Cham: Springer, 2023, pp. 193–216.
48.
MenziesKJonesL.The impact of contact angle on the biocompatibility of biomaterials. Optiom Vis Sci2010; 87: 387–399.
49.
HieuLZlatovNVander SlotenJ, et al. Medical rapid prototyping applications and methods. Assem Autom2005; 25: 284–292.
50.
SureshGNarayanaGMallikM, et al. A review on development of medical implants by rapid prototyping technology. Int J Pure Appl Math2017; 21: 257–276.
51.
HanJ.Three dimensional bioprinting of artificial organs: how close are we to its clinical application?Artif Organs2023; 47: 912–913.
52.
ChengXFanZYaoS, et al. Programming 3D curved mesosurfaces using microlattice designs. Science2023; 379: 1225–1232.
53.
BhusnureOGholveSDongreR, et al. 3D printing & pharmaceutical manufacturing: opportunities and challenges. Intern J Bioassays2016; 5(1): 4723–4738.
54.
AntezanaPMunicoySOstapchukG, et al. 4D-printing: the development of responsive materials using 3D printing technologyPharmaceutics2023; 15: 2–41.
LeypoldtJCheungAChirananthavatT, et al. Hollow fiber shape alters solute clearances in high flux dialyzers. ASAIO J2003; 49: 81–87.
58.
StraussKvan ZundertAFridA, et al. Pandemic influence preparedness: the critical role of the syringe. Vaccine2006; 24: 4874–4882.
59.
ZhuangJYinJLvS, et al. Advanced “lab-on-a-chip” to detect viruses – current challenges and future perspectives. Biosens Bioelectron2020; 163: 112291.
60.
VeisehODoloffJMaM, et al. Size- and shape-dependant foreign body immune responses to materials implanted in rodents and non-human primates. Nat Mater2015; 14: 643–651.
