Environmental impact of single-use versus reusable gastroscopes

被引:4
|
作者
Pioche, Mathieu [1 ]
Pohl, Heiko [2 ]
Neves, Joao A. Cunha [3 ]
Laporte, Arthur [4 ]
Mochet, Mikael [5 ]
Rivory, Jerome [6 ,7 ]
Grau, Raphaelle [1 ]
Jacques, Jeremie [8 ,9 ]
Grinberg, Daniel [1 ,10 ]
Boube, Mathilde [11 ]
Baddeley, Robin [12 ,13 ]
Cottinet, Pierre-Jean [10 ]
Schaefer, Marion [14 ]
de Santiago, Enrique Rodriguez [15 ]
Berger, Arthur [16 ]
机构
[1] Hosp Civils Lyon, Lyon, France
[2] White River Junct VA Med Ctr, Gastroenterol & Hepatol, White River Jct, VT USA
[3] Algarve Hosp Ctr, Portimao, Portugal
[4] APESA, Pau, Nouvelle Aquita, France
[5] Hosp Civils Lyon, Endoscopy Div, Lyon, France
[6] Hop Edouard Herriot, Gastroenterol & Endoscopy, Lyon, France
[7] Hop Croix Rousse, Gastroenterol & Endoscopy, Lyon, France
[8] Hop Dupuytren, Dept Immunol, Limoges, France
[9] CNRS XLIM, UMR 7252, Limoges, France
[10] Mat Organ Lab, Villeurbanne, France
[11] Publ Hosp, Gastroenterol, Bayonne, France
[12] St Marks Natl Bowel Hosp & Acad Inst, London, England
[13] Kings Hlth Partners, Inst Therapeut Endoscopy, London, England
[14] Nancy Reg Univ Hosp Ctr, Dept Hepatogastroentrol, Nancy, France
[15] Hosp Univ Ramon & Cajal Madrid, Madrid, Spain
[16] Bordeaux Univ Hosp, Dept Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Bordeaux, France
来源
关键词
environmental health; endoscopy; diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; ENDOSCOPY;
D O I
10.1136/gutjnl-2024-332293
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction The environmental impact of endoscopy is a topic of growing interest. This study aimed to compare the carbon footprint of performing an esogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with a reusable (RU) or with a single-use (SU) disposable gastroscope.Methods SU (Ambu aScope Gastro) and RU gastroscopes (Olympus, H190) were evaluated using life cycle assessment methodology (ISO 14040) including the manufacture, distribution, usage, reprocessing and disposal of the endoscope. Data were obtained from Edouard Herriot Hospital (Lyon, France) from April 2023 to February 2024. Primary outcome was the carbon footprint (measured in Kg CO2 equivalent) for both gastroscopes per examination. Secondary outcomes included other environmental impacts. A sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the impact of varying scenarios.Results Carbon footprint of SU and RU gastroscopes were 10.9 kg CO2 eq and 4.7 kg CO2 eq, respectively. The difference in carbon footprint equals one conventional car drive of 28 km or 6 days of CO2 emission of an average European household. Based on environmentally-extended input-output life cycle assessment, the estimated per-use carbon footprint of the endoscope stack and washer was 0.18 kg CO2 eq in SU strategy versus 0.56 kg CO2 eq in RU strategy. According to secondary outcomes, fossil eq depletion was 130 MJ (SU) and 60.9 MJ (RU) and water depletion for 6.2 m3 (SU) and 9.5 m3 (RU), respectively.Conclusion For one examination, SU gastroscope have a 2.5 times higher carbon footprint than RU ones. These data will help with the logistics and planning of an endoscopic service in relation to other economic and environmental factors.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Articulation of Single-Use and Reusable Therapeutic Gastroscopes
    Pradhan, Shreyash
    Hoffman, David
    Cool, Christina
    Billy, Helmuth
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2024, 119 (10S):
  • [2] Environmental and healthcare trade-offs between single-use and reusable gastroscopes
    Han, Jiashu
    Shan, Dan
    GUT, 2024,
  • [3] Environmental impact of hybrid (reusable/single-use) ports versus single-use equivalents in robotic surgery
    Rizan, Chantelle
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2024, 18 (01)
  • [4] Environmental impact of single-use and reusable flexible cystoscopes
    Kemble, Jayson P.
    Winoker, Jared S.
    Patel, Sunil H.
    Su, Zhuo T.
    Matlaga, Brian R.
    Potretzke, Aaron M.
    Koo, Kevin
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2023, 131 (05) : 617 - 622
  • [5] Environmental and health outcomes of single-use versus reusable duodenoscopes
    Le, Nguyen Nhat Thu
    Hernandez, Lyndon, V
    Vakil, Nimish
    Guda, Nalini
    Patnode, Casey
    Jolliet, Olivier
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2022, 96 (06) : 1002 - 1008
  • [6] Comment on 'environmental impact of single-use and reusable flexible cystoscopes'
    Baboudjian, Michael
    Bastide, Cyrille
    Lechevallier, Eric
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2023, 131 (05) : 634 - 634
  • [7] Single-use versus reusable devices
    McCormick, RD
    BIOMEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION & TECHNOLOGY, 1996, 30 (05) : 407 - 410
  • [8] Reusable Versus Single-Use Endoscopes
    Fischer, Lindsay
    AORN JOURNAL, 2024, 120 (01) : P3 - P6
  • [9] Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy
    Chantelle Rizan
    Mahmood F. Bhutta
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2022, 36 : 4067 - 4078
  • [10] Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy
    Rizan, Chantelle
    Bhutta, Mahmood F.
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2022, 36 (06): : 4067 - 4078