Ecological impact of endoscopic dilatation using the bougie cap device: a low-tech innovation to reduce waste by 99

Environmental impact of single-use versus reusable gastroscopes

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.

The environmental impact of small-bowel capsule endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

 The environmental impact of endoscopy, including small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), is a topic of growing attention and concern. This study aimed to evaluate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (kgCO2) generated by an SBCE procedure.

METHODS

 Life cycle assessment methodology (ISO 14040) was used to evaluate three brands of SBCE device and included emissions generated by patient travel, bowel preparation, capsule examination, and video recording. A survey of 87 physicians and 120 patients was conducted to obtain data on travel, activities undertaken during the procedure, and awareness of environmental impacts.

RESULTS

 The capsule itself (4 g) accounted for < 6 % of the total product weight. Packaging (43-119 g) accounted for 9 %-97 % of total weight, and included deactivation magnets (5 g [4 %-6 %]) and paper instructions (11-50 g [up to 40 %]). A full SBCE procedure generated approximately 20 kgCO2, with 0.04 kgCO2 (0.2 %) attributable to the capsule itself and 18 kgCO2 (94.7 %) generated by patient travel. Capsule retrieval using a dedicated device would add 0.98 kgCO2 to the carbon footprint. Capsule deconstruction revealed materials (e. g. neodymium) that are prohibited from environmental disposal; 76 % of patients were not aware of the illegal nature of capsule disposal via wastewater, and 63 % would have been willing to retrieve it. The carbon impact of data storage and capsule reading was negligible.

CONCLUSION

 The carbon footprint of SBCE is mainly determined by patient travel. The capsule device itself has a relatively low carbon footprint. Given that disposal of capsule components via wastewater is illegal, retrieval of the capsule is necessary but would likely be associated with an increase in device-related emissions.