The Carbon Footprint of Single-Use Flexible Cystoscopes Compared with Reusable Cystoscopes
- PMID: 35607858
- DOI: 10.1089/end.2021.0891
The Carbon Footprint of Single-Use Flexible Cystoscopes Compared with Reusable Cystoscopes
Abstract
Introduction: Single-use devices for endourologic procedures are becoming more popular. The environmental impact of single-use instruments is relatively unknown. This study aimed to compare the carbon footprint of single-use vs reusable flexible cystoscopes based on waste production and estimated carbon emissions. Methods: An analysis of the solid waste produced when using the aScope™ 4 Cysto (Ambu®) single-use flexible cystoscope compared with the reusable Cysto-Nephro Videoscope CYF-VA2 (Olympus®) was performed. The solid waste generated was measured (grams) and recorded as either recyclable, landfill, or contaminated, and carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by disposal, manufacture, and cleaning was calculated. Results: A total of 40 flexible cystoscopies (20 single-use and 20 reusable) were analyzed. Median total weight of waste produced was 622 g (interquartile range [IQR] 621-651) for the single-use cystoscope compared with 671.5 g (IQR 659-677.5) for the reusable cystoscope (p < 0.0001). More waste was disposed of by incineration after single-use than reusable cystoscopy (496 g [IQR 495-525] vs 415 g [IQR 403-421.5], p < 0.0001). However, more waste went to landfill after reusable cystoscopy (256 g ± 0 vs 126 g ± 0, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in weight of waste produced based on the indication for cystoscopy (p = 0.1570). A total of 2.41 kg of CO2 (IQR 2.40-2.44) was produced per case for the single-use flexible cystoscope compared with 4.23 kg of CO2 (IQR 4.22-4.24) for the reusable cystoscope (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Environmental accountability is essential in modern health care. This study highlights that disposable flexible cystoscopes have a significantly lower impact on the environment in terms of carbon footprint and landfill. We propose that environmental impact studies should be a routine part of device development for a sustainable future.
Keywords: carbon dioxide; disposable; environment; flexible cystoscopy; single-use.
Comment in
-
Comment on: "The Carbon Footprint of Single-Use Flexible Cystoscopes Compared with Reusable Cystoscopes" by D. Hogan et al.J Endourol. 2022 Nov;36(11):1465. doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0363. Epub 2022 Jul 7. J Endourol. 2022. PMID: 35620912 No abstract available.
-
Re: The Carbon Footprint of Single-Use Flexible Cystoscopes Compared with Reusable Cystoscopes: Methodological Flaws Led to the Erroneous Conclusion That Single-Use Is "Better".J Endourol. 2022 Nov;36(11):1466-1467. doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0482. Epub 2022 Aug 22. J Endourol. 2022. PMID: 35848502 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Environmental impact of single-use and reusable flexible cystoscopes.BJU Int. 2023 May;131(5):617-622. doi: 10.1111/bju.15949. Epub 2023 Jan 2. BJU Int. 2023. PMID: 36515438
-
Environmental Impact of Flexible Cystoscopy: A Comparative Analysis Between Carbon Footprint of Isiris® Single-Use Cystoscope and Reusable Flexible Cystoscope and a Systematic Review of Literature.J Endourol. 2024 Apr;38(4):386-394. doi: 10.1089/end.2023.0274. J Endourol. 2024. PMID: 38185843
-
Cost and Environmental Impact of Disposable Flexible Cystoscopes Compared to Reusable Devices.J Endourol. 2022 Oct;36(10):1317-1321. doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0201. Epub 2022 Jun 29. J Endourol. 2022. PMID: 35703325
-
Time Efficiency and Performance of Single-Use vs Reusable Cystoscopes: A Randomized Benchtop and Simulated Clinical Assessment.J Endourol. 2024 Jan;38(1):53-59. doi: 10.1089/end.2023.0372. J Endourol. 2024. PMID: 37800857
-
Office flexible cystoscopy.Urol Clin North Am. 1988 Nov;15(4):601-8. Urol Clin North Am. 1988. PMID: 3055614 Review.
Cited by
-
Measuring and improving the cradle-to-grave environmental performance of urological procedures.Nat Rev Urol. 2025 Apr;22(4):235-248. doi: 10.1038/s41585-024-00937-0. Epub 2024 Sep 27. Nat Rev Urol. 2025. PMID: 39333389 Review.
-
Decarbonizing surgical care: a qualitative systematic review guided by the Congruence Model.BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Nov 23;24(1):1456. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11929-6. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024. PMID: 39580403 Free PMC article.
-
The carbon footprint of transperineal prostate biopsy.BJUI Compass. 2025 Jul 30;6(8):e70063. doi: 10.1002/bco2.70063. eCollection 2025 Aug. BJUI Compass. 2025. PMID: 40746850 Free PMC article.
-
Environmental impact of current endoscopic technology in urological procedures: a systematic review on reusable vs. disposable scopes.World J Urol. 2024 Dec 5;43(1):15. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05317-2. World J Urol. 2024. PMID: 39638871
-
Environmental sustainability in urologic practices: a systematic review.World J Urol. 2025 Mar 6;43(1):152. doi: 10.1007/s00345-025-05522-7. World J Urol. 2025. PMID: 40050530 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources