OBJECTIVES: Several medical devices are labeled for single-use only. The popularity of several "off-label" processes - re sterilization, reprocessing and reuse of single use devices (SUDs)-is mainly due to the cost saving and environmental benefits, but also from scarcity of evidence of adverse safety data. This study objective was to compare differential costs of a reuse vs. a single use policy of SUDs and estimate its implications considering 4 device types (Trocars, endo-cutters, lineal-cutters and harmonic scalpels) from a perspective of an Argentinean private health care organization. METHODS: A literature review was performed to identify the clinical outcomes after the use of re sterilized SUDs, which was supplemented with a Delphi-like panel to inform missing parameters. An economic model was built to estimate the cost difference between a surgical procedure performed with SUDs or with a reused sterilized SUD. Costs were expressed in USD of 2012 and were grouped in three categories: device related costs, adverse events, and the incremental surgical time associated to reuse of SUD. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.   RESULTS: A private health care payer in Argentina would expect to spend USD 425 per surgery if new trocars are used and USD 244 if sterilized material are utilized instead. For endo-cutters the equivalent results were USD 1,667 and USD 1,102, for linear-cutters USD 1,228 and USD 1,046 and for harmonic scalpels USD 1,041 and USD 292. Results were robust in the sensitivity and scenario analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In all the devices and scenarios analyzed, reutilization of SUD resulted less costly than using only new material even after considering the additional cost associated with potential adverse events related to reuse. If we consider total surgical costs, these differences represent savings that range from 2.5% to 14.8%. More research is needed to assess effectiveness and safety of these off-label policies.