Literature DB >> 29373918

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

Niall F Davis1, Shannon McGrath1, Mark Quinlan1, Gregory Jack1, Nathan Lawrentschuk1, Damien M Bolton1.   

Abstract

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 11.49 kg of CO2 per 1 kg of ureteroscope. The weight of the single-use LithoVue and URV-F flexible ureteroscope was 0.3 and 1 kg, respectively. The total carbon footprint of the lifecycle assessment of the LithoVue was 4.43 kg of CO2 per endourologic case. The total carbon footprint of the lifecycle of the reusable ureteroscope was 4.47 kg 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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CO2 emissions; carbon footprint; flexible ureteroscopy; healthcare delivery

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29373918     DOI: 10.1089/end.2018.0001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  10 in total

1.  Comparative medico-economic study of reusable vs. single-use flexible ureteroscopes.

Authors:  Khalid Al-Balushi; Nathalie Martin; Hélène Loubon; Michael Baboudjian; Floriane Michel; Pierre-Clément Sichez; Thomas Martin; Eugénie Di-Crocco; Sarah Gaillet; Veronique Delaporte; Akram Akiki; Alice Faure; Gilles Karsenty; Eric Lechevallier; Romain Boissier
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  Outcomes and Cost Evaluation Related to a Single-Use, Disposable Ureteric Stent Removal System: a Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Thomas Hughes; Amelia Pietropaolo; Patrick Jones; Marco Oderda; Paolo Gontero; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group.

Authors:  Michele Talso; Ioannis K Goumas; Guido M Kamphuis; Laurian Dragos; Tzevat Tefik; Olivier Traxer; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2019-09

4.  Green endoscopy: using quality improvement to develop sustainable practice.

Authors:  James B Maurice; Andrew Rochford; Sarah Marshall; Shaji Sebastian; Anjan Dhar; Bu'Hussain Hayee
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-06-07

5.  Market Readiness for Single-Use Cystoscopes According to Urologists and Procurement Managers Worldwide.

Authors:  Dinah Rindorf; Sara Larsen; Lotte Ockert; Helene Jung; Claus Dahl
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2021-05-06

6.  Can the introduction of single-use flexible ureteroscopes increase the longevity of reusable flexible ureteroscopes at a high volume centre?

Authors:  Eugenio Ventimiglia; Niamh Smyth; Steeve Doizi; Alvaro Jiménez Godínez; Yazeed Barghouthy; Mariela Alejandra Corrales Acosta; Hatem Kamkoum; Bhaskar Somani; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 7.  A comprehensive literature-based equation to compare cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program with single-use versus reusable devices.

Authors:  Giovanni S Marchini; Fábio C Torricelli; Carlos A Batagello; Manoj Monga; Fábio C Vicentini; Alexandre Danilovic; Miguel Srougi; William C Nahas; Eduardo Mazzucchi
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2019 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.541

Review 8.  Building sustainable and resilient surgical systems: A narrative review of opportunities to integrate climate change into national surgical planning in the Western Pacific region.

Authors:  Rennie X Qin; Lotta Velin; Elizabeth F Yates; Omnia El Omrani; Elizabeth McLeod; Jemesa Tudravu; Lubna Samad; Alistair Woodward; Craig D McClain
Journal:  Lancet Reg Health West Pac       Date:  2022-02-23

9.  Carbon footprint modelling of national health systems: Opportunities, challenges and recommendations.

Authors:  Amy Booth
Journal:  Int J Health Plann Manage       Date:  2022-02-24

Review 10.  Operating in a Climate Crisis: A State-of-the-Science Review of Life Cycle Assessment within Surgical and Anesthetic Care.

Authors:  Jonathan Drew; Sean D Christie; Peter Tyedmers; Jenna Smith-Forrester; Daniel Rainham
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 9.031

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.