Beyond Disposability: A Systematic Review of Reusable and Single-Use Products in Hygiene-Related Nursing Care in the ICU

Background/Objectives: Intensive care is resource-intensive, and routine nursing hygiene contributes substantially to material consumption. This systematic review synthesised evidence comparing single-use and reusable or traditional reusable products in hygiene- related nursing care in intensive and critical care settings, considering clinical, economic, and environmental outcomes. Methods: A systematic review with structured narrative synthesis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020. MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and CINAHL Ultimate via EBSCOhost were searched from inception to 25 August 2026. No language, date, or publication-type filters were applied at the database level. Primary empirical comparative studies and process-based life cycle assessments reporting original inventory data were eligible; English or Italian full text was required for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and performed design-appropriate methodological appraisal, with a third reviewer available to resolve disagreements. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261376160). Results: Eight studies were included: four quasi-experimental or before–after studies, three randomized trials, and one process-based life cycle assessment. The seven patient- based studies included 2665 participants across adult, paediatric, and neonatal intensive care settings. Environmental evidence was limited to two complementary studies from a single Australian ICU: reusable linen was associated with a 50% reduction in carbon emissions, from 7206 to 3605 kg CO2 e, and substantial reductions in landfill waste. Economic findings were product- and context-dependent; disposable bathing systems and diapers were generally less costly in the settings examined, whereas reusable linen increased overall expenditure by approximately 3%. Clinical findings showed no uniform advantage for either product category. After adjustment, linen type was not independently associated with pressure injury, bathing studies showed heterogeneous microbiological findings and no consistent physiological advantage between methods, and one neonatal before–after study reported lower probable sepsis with disposable diapers. Conclusions: Current evidence does not support a general advantage of either reusable or single-use hygiene products across intensive care. Environmental benefits were demonstrated for reusable linen, whereas economic and clinical outcomes varied by product, setting, and analytical approach. The evidence base remains small and heterogeneous, and no included study assessed clinical, economic, and environmental outcomes concurrently. Integrated comparative studies, particularly in European intensive care settings, are needed.