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
  • [31] Clinical comparative study of single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of lower pole stones: a retrospective case-controlled study
    Jing, Qiang
    Liu, Fan
    Yuan, Xiaobin
    Zhang, Xuhui
    Cao, Xiaoming
    BMC UROLOGY, 2024, 24 (01):
  • [32] Comparative investigation of reusable and single-use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions
    Eisel, Maximilian
    Strittmatter, Frank
    Stroebl, Stephan
    Freymueller, Christian
    Pongratz, Thomas
    Sroka, Ronald
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2020, 10 (01)
  • [33] Institutional Micro-Cost Comparative Analysis of Reusable vs Single-use Cystoscopes With Assessment of Environmental Footprint
    Bertolo, Riccardo
    Gilioli, Veronica
    Veccia, Alessandro
    Malandra, Sarah
    Dal Corso, Luca
    Fenzi, Daniela
    Mazzetto, Francesca
    Antonelli, Alessandro
    UROLOGY, 2024, 188 : 70 - 76
  • [34] RETROSPECTIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REUSABLE AND DISPOSABLE FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPES: RESULTS FROM FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY OUTCOME REGISTRY (FLEXOR)
    Singh, Abhishek
    Traxer, Olivier
    Somani, Bhaskar
    Ann, Chai Chua
    Keat, William Ong Lay
    Ben Chew
    Ganpule, Arvind
    Sabnis, Ravindra
    Desai, Mahesh
    Tailly, Thomas
    Emiliani, Esteban
    Castellani, Daniele
    Teoh, Jeremy Yuen-Chun
    Gauhar, Vineet
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 209 : E314 - E314
  • [35] A Prospective Case-Control Study Comparing LithoVue, a Single-Use, Flexible Disposable Ureteroscope, with Flexible, Reusable Fiber-Optic Ureteroscopes
    Usawachintachit, Manint
    Isaacson, Dylan S.
    Taguchi, Kazumi
    Tzou, David T.
    Hsi, Ryan S.
    Sherer, Benjamin A.
    Stoller, Marshall L.
    Chi, Thomas
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2017, 31 (05): : 468 - 475
  • [36] Correction: Reusable versus single-use ICU equipment: what’s the environmental footprint?
    Forbes McGain
    Scott McAlister
    Intensive Care Medicine, 2024, 50 : 156 - 156
  • [37] Environmental impact of hybrid (reusable/single-use) ports versus single-use equivalents in robotic surgery
    Rizan, Chantelle
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2024, 18 (01)
  • [38] Environmental evaluation of single-use and reusable cups
    Garrido, Nuria
    Alvarez del Castillo, M. Dolors
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2007, 12 (04): : 252 - 256
  • [39] Environmental evaluation of single-use and reusable cups
    Nuria Garrido
    M. Dolors Alvarez del Castillo
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2007, 12 : 252 - 256
  • [40] Single-Use Versus Reusable Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes for the Treatment of Renal Calculi: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
    Qi, Shiyong
    Yang, Enguang
    Bao, Junsheng
    Yang, Ningqiang
    Guo, Hongfeng
    Wang, Gang
    Li, Ningchen
    Cui, Xin
    Gao, Wei
    Ou, Tongwen
    Wang, Jiaji
    Wang, Zhiping
    Niu, Yuanjie
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2020, 34 (01) : 18 - 24