Environmental impact of single-use versus reusable gastroscopes

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. SU (Ambu aScope Gastro) and RU gastroscopes (Olympus, H190) were...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Gut Vol. 73; no. 11; p. 1816
Main Authors:	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
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	England 08-08-2024
Subjects:	Carbon Footprint Disposable Equipment Endoscopy, Digestive System - instrumentation Equipment Reuse France Gastroscopes Humans France endoscopy environmental health diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy
Online Access:	Get more information
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	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. 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 CO equivalent) for both gastroscopes per examination. Secondary outcomes included other environmental impacts. A sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the impact of varying scenarios. Carbon footprint of SU and RU gastroscopes were 10.9 kg CO eq and 4.7 kg CO eq, respectively. The difference in carbon footprint equals one conventional car drive of 28 km or 6 days of CO 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 CO eq in SU strategy versus 0.56 kg CO 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 m (SU) and 9.5 m (RU), respectively. 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.
ISSN:	1468-3288
DOI:	10.1136/gutjnl-2024-332293