Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Environmental impact of single-use versus reusable gastroscopes.
Pioche, Mathieu; Pohl, Heiko; Cunha Neves, João A; Laporte, Arthur; Mochet, Mikael; Rivory, Jérôme; Grau, Raphaelle; Jacques, Jérémie; Grinberg, Daniel; Boube, Mathilde; Baddeley, Robin; Cottinet, Pierre-Jean; Schaefer, Marion; Rodríguez de Santiago, Enrique; Berger, Arthur.
Afiliación
  • Pioche M; Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France mathieu.pioche@chu-lyon.fr.
  • Pohl H; Gastroenterology and Hepatology, White River Junction VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont, USA.
  • Cunha Neves JA; Algarve Hospital Centre, Portimão, Portugal.
  • Laporte A; APESA, Pau, Nouvelle-Aquitaine, France.
  • Mochet M; Endoscopy division, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
  • Rivory J; Gastroenterology and Endoscopy, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France.
  • Grau R; Gastroenterology and Endoscopy, Hopital Croix Rousse, Lyon, France.
  • Jacques J; Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
  • Grinberg D; Gastroenterology, Hopital Dupuytren, Limoges, France.
  • Boube M; UMR 7252, CNRS XLIM, Limoges, France.
  • Baddeley R; Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
  • Cottinet PJ; Material Analysis Laboratory, Villeurbanne, France.
  • Schaefer M; Gastroenterology, Public hospital, Bayonne, France.
  • Rodríguez de Santiago E; St Mark's the National Bowel Hospital and Academic Institute, London, UK.
  • Berger A; Institute for Therapeutic Endoscopy, King's Health Partners, London, UK.
Gut ; 2024 Aug 23.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39122363
ABSTRACT

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.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Gut Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Francia

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Gut Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Francia