Carbon Footprint in Flexible Ureteroscopy: A Comparative Study on the Environmental Impact of Reusable and Single-Use Ureteroscopes

被引:116
|
作者
Davis, Niall F. [1 ]
McGrath, Shannon [1 ]
Quinlan, Mark [1 ]
Jack, Gregory [1 ]
Lawrentschuk, Nathan [1 ]
Bolton, Damien M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Austin Hosp, Dept Urol, Melbourne, Vic 3084, Australia
关键词
flexible ureteroscopy; carbon footprint; CO2; emissions; healthcare delivery; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; INSTRUMENTS;
D O I
10.1089/end.2018.0001
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose: There are no comparative assessments on the environmental impact of endourologic instruments. We evaluated and compared the environmental impact of single-use flexible ureteroscopes with reusable flexible ureteroscopes. Patients and Methods: An analysis of the typical life cycle of the LithoVue (Boston Scientific) single-use digital flexible ureteroscope and Olympus Flexible Video Ureteroscope (URV-F) was performed. To measure the carbon footprint, data were obtained on manufacturing of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscopes and from typical uses obtained with a reusable scope, including repairs, replacement instruments, and ultimate disposal of both ureteroscopes. The solid waste generated (kg) and energy consumed (kWh) during each case were quantified and converted into their equivalent mass of carbon dioxide (kg of CO2) released. Results: Flexible ureteroscopic raw materials composed of plastic (90%), steel (4%), electronics (4%), and rubber (2%). The manufacturing cost of a flexible ureteroscope was 11.49kg of CO2 per 1kg of ureteroscope. The weight of the single-use LithoVue and URV-F flexible ureteroscope was 0.3 and 1kg, respectively. The total carbon footprint of the lifecycle assessment of the LithoVue was 4.43kg of CO2 per endourologic case. The total carbon footprint of the lifecycle of the reusable ureteroscope was 4.47kg of CO2 per case. Conclusion: The environmental impacts of the reusable flexible ureteroscope and the single-use flexible ureteroscope are comparable. Urologists should be aware that the typical life cycle of urologic instruments is a concerning source of environmental emissions.
引用
收藏
页码:214 / 217
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: Comparative in vitro analysis of four scopes
    Patil, Abhijit
    Agrawal, Shashank
    Batra, Rohan
    Singh, Abhishek
    Ganpule, Arvind
    Sabnis, Ravindra
    Desai, Mahesh
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 10 : 64 - 69
  • [22] THE COST OF CONVENIENCE: ESTIMATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SINGLE-USE AND REUSABLE FLEXIBLE CYSTOSCOPES
    Koo, Kevin
    Winoker, Jared
    Patel, Sunil
    Su, Zhuo
    Potretzke, Aaron
    Matlaga, Brian
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2021, 206 : E683 - E684
  • [23] Environmental footprint and material composition comparison of single-use and reusable duodenoscopes
    Lopez-Munoz, Pedro
    Martin-Cabezuelo, Ruben
    Lorenzo-Zuniga, Vicente
    Garcia-Castellanos, Marina
    Vilarino-Feltrer, Guillermo
    Tort-Ausina, Isabel
    Campillo-Fernandez, Alberto
    Beltran, Vicente Pons
    ENDOSCOPY, 2025, 57 (02) : 116 - 123
  • [24] Editorial Comment to Single use versus reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes: A prospective comparative study
    Hennessey, Derek B.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 26 (10) : 1005 - 1006
  • [25] Environmental impact of single-use versus reusable gastroscopes
    Pioche, Mathieu
    Pohl, Heiko
    Neves, Joao A. Cunha
    Laporte, Arthur
    Mochet, Mikael
    Rivory, Jerome
    Grau, Raphaelle
    Jacques, Jeremie
    Grinberg, Daniel
    Boube, Mathilde
    Baddeley, Robin
    Cottinet, Pierre-Jean
    Schaefer, Marion
    de Santiago, Enrique Rodriguez
    Berger, Arthur
    GUT, 2024,
  • [26] Re: The Carbon Footprint of Single-Use Flexible Cystoscopes Compared to Reusable Cystoscopes: Methodological Flaws Led to the Erroneous Conclusion That Single-Use Is "Better"
    Rizan, Chantelle
    Bhutta, Mahmood F.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2022, 36 (11) : 1466 - 1467
  • [27] ANALYSIS OF THE COSTS AND CARBON FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATED WITH REUSABLE FLEXIBLE CYSTOSCOPES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UTILIZATION OF SINGLE-USE DIGITAL FLEXIBLE CYSTOSCOPES
    Kelly, T.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2024, 27 (12)
  • [28] The carbon footprint of reusable versus single use flexible cystoscopes
    Lee, A.
    Hayne, D.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2024, 85 : S951 - S951
  • [29] Reusable versus single-use ICU equipment: what's the environmental footprint?
    McGain, Forbes
    McAlister, Scott
    INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, 2023, 49 (12) : 1523 - 1525
  • [30] Reusable versus single-use ICU equipment: what’s the environmental footprint?
    Forbes McGain
    Scott McAlister
    Intensive Care Medicine, 2023, 49 : 1523 - 1525