Study Assesses Life Cycle, Environmental Footprint of Single-Use and Reusable Cystoscopes

Value-Based Care

Study Assesses Life Cycle, Environmental Footprint of Single-Use and Reusable Cystoscopes

Disinfecting a reusable cystoscope produced a much higher impact on the carbon footprint in each of the environmental categories that were analyzed compared with the entire life cycle of a single-use endoscope.

Transitioning from reusable to single-use cystoscopes results in a substantially lower environmental impact, according to a new study.

The Ambu® aScope™ 4 Cysto is said to have reduced climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent in comparison to the sterilization and reprocessing of a reusable cystoscope, according to new research.

The findings are based on a study recently published in European Urology Focus, assessing the life cycle of both reusable and single-use cystoscopes at a hospital in Marseille, France, over 12 months.

Healthcare facilities have been transitioning to single-use endoscopy platforms due to cross-contamination concerns. While single-use cystoscopes have several advantages over their reusable counterparts, researchers say their environmental impact has sparked concerns from some healthcare providers.

As a part of their investigation, researchers reviewed the entire life cycle of an aScope 4 Cysto, including raw material extraction, product assembly, and final disposal.

Researchers omitted similar information containing data about a reusable cystoscope's life cycle from their analysis due to a lack of material provided by the manufacturers. They limited their assessment to reprocessing and high-level disinfection.

Researchers analyzed five environmental categories impacting the carbon footprint, primarily focusing on climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Disinfecting a reusable cystoscope produced a much higher impact on the carbon footprint in each of the environmental categories that were analyzed compared with the entire life cycle of a single-use endoscope, according to the researchers.

They concluded that even though reusable devices appear to minimize medical waste, the sterilization process counterbalances that benefit.

Reprocessing a reusable cystoscope involves the use of energy, several gallons of clean water, and chemicals that create harmful waste.

Approximately 3 million to 4.5 million cystoscopy procedures are performed annually in the U.S. and Europe, according to researchers.

------------------------

Related:

Study Compares Cost and Environmental Impact of Single-Use and Reusable Cystoscopes

How Do the Carbon Footprints of Single-Use and Reusable Ureteroscopes Compare?

Podcast: Single-Use Endoscopes Are More Sustainable Than You Think

More Urology Articles
Podcast: Why Bladder Cancer Patients Should Get Vaccinated
Preventing Infection
“In terms of the vaccination, there’s really no evidence to suggest that that will interfere with their bladder cancer treatment,” Dr. Seth P. Lerner said on the Bladder Cancer Matters podcast.
How Bladder Cancer Patients Should Navigate the BCG Shortage
Public Health
“The most important thing is to have a discussion with your urologist as a first step to see how important is it that you get BCG,” Robert Svatek, MD, said on the Bladder Cancer Matters podcast.
More From Single-Use Endoscopy
How Much Does It Really Cost to Own Endoscopes?

Value-Based Care

Ownership costs are hidden in capital accounts, expensive service contracts and repair agreements that are capitated, a medical device industry executive writes.

How to Stop the Cycle of ‘Reactive Repairs’ on Endoscopes

Prevention Challenges

They are costly, add stress for staff and put patients at risk.

Study Evaluates Single-Use Gastroscope Feasibility in Evaluating, Treating Upper GI Bleeding

Emerging Technologies

Single-use duodenoscopes are already common for ERCP, but what about gastroscopes and EGD?