[Postoperative care during the first few days: the main functions].

S. Reysz,J. André

1992-11-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A Second Family with Autosomal Dominant Burning Feet Syndrome

G. Kuhlenbäumer,P. Young,R. Kiefer,V. Timmerman,J-F Wang,J. M. Schroeder,J. Weis,E. Ringelstein,C. van Broeckhoven,F. Stoegbauer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08606.x

IF: 6.499

1999-10-01

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Abstract:
Determination of Atomic Distributions in Liquid Lead‐Bismuth Alloys by Neutron and X‐Ray Diffraction

Paul C. Sharrah,J. Petz,R. Kruh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1700908

Abstract:The intensity of scattered neutrons and x‐rays has been measured for molten alloys and pure components in the system lead‐bismuth. A specially designed diffraction spectrometer has been constructed for the x‐ray determinations. The diffraction data have been treated to give atom distributions, and the first main peak in the distribution curves for solutions up to about 60 wt % bismuth corresponds to 12 nearest neighbors, with the value falling to about 7.7 for pure bismuth. No unusual features have been found in the eutectic region, but the density decrease on melting of lead‐rich solids is puzzling in view of the retention of 12 nearest neighbors at a mean distance shorter than in the crystal. A model of average pentagonal dodecahedral coordination is suggested to account for this and for the spacing of first maxima in the distribution curves.
The carbon footprint of ambulatory gastrointestinal endoscopy

Joel Lacroute,Juliette MARCANTONI,Stephane PETITOT,Julien WEBER,Bastien DIRRENBERGER,Irina Tchoumak,Mathilde BARON,Stéphanie GIBERT,Sandrine MARGUERITE,Anne DERLON,Olivier Gronier,Jerome Huppertz,Patrick LEVY

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2088-4062

2023-05-08

Endoscopy

Abstract:Background and study aims Endoscopy is considered the third highest generator of waste within healthcare. This is of public importance as approximately 18 million endoscopy procedures are performed yearly in the United States and 2 million in France. However, a precise measure of the carbon footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) is lacking. Methods This retrospective study for 2021 was conducted in an ambulatory GIE center in France where 8’524 procedures were performed on 6’070 patients. The annual carbon footprint (CF) of GIE was calculated using “Bilan Carbone” of the French Environmental and Energy Management Agency. This multi-criteria method accounts for direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from energy consumption (gas and electricity), medical gases, medical and non-medical equipment, consumables, freight, travel and waste. Results Greenhouse gas emissions in 2021 are estimated at 241 tonnes CO2 equivalents (CO2e) at the center, giving a carbon footprint for one GIE procedure at 28·4 kg CO2e. The main greenhouse gas emission, 45 % of total, is from travel by patients and professionals at the center. Other emission sources, in rank order, are medical and non-medical equipment (32%), energy consumption (12%), consumables (7%), waste (3%), freight (0·4%) and medical gases (0·005%). Conclusions This is the first multi-criteria analysis assessing carbon footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy. It highlights that travel, medical equipment and energy are major sources of this footprint, waste being a minor contributor. This study provides an opportunity to raise awareness among gastroenterologists of the carbon footprint of GIE procedures.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Unveiling the hidden impact: Scope 3 emissions in endoscopy

Lyndon V. Hernandez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2445-6388

2024-11-06

Endoscopy

Abstract:The study by López-Muñoz et al. published in this issue of Endoscopy provides a critical analysis of the carbon footprint associated with single-use duodenoscopes (SUDs) and reusable duodenoscopes (RUDs), offering valuable insights into the broader environmental impact of medical equipment [1]. By modeling three distinct clinical scenarios, the authors highlight the substantial difference in carbon emissions between the approaches, emphasizing particularly the environmental benefits of reusable devices; however, the study also brings to light an often underestimated aspect of environmental impact in healthcare: Scope 3 emissions. Scope 3 emissions refer to the indirect emissions that occur throughout a product's value chain, including those generated during the production, transportation, and disposal of medical equipment. Unlike Scope 1 and 2 emissions, which are directly tied to healthcare facilities and their energy consumption, Scope 3 emissions encompass the full lifecycle of the equipment used, making them more challenging to measure, and meaning they often overlooked in environmental assessments. While Scope 1 and 2 emissions are relatively straightforward to measure and report, Scope 3 emissions are more complex, leading companies often to rely on industry averages in their estimates. "These findings starkly highlight the environmental advantages of reusables, not only in reducing waste, but also in minimizing the Scope 3 emissions associated with their lifecycle." A key strength of the study by López-Muñoz et al. is their meticulous approach in determining the composition of the duodenoscopes in a material science laboratory. This enables a more accurate estimation of the carbon emissions linked to the manufacture of these instruments, addressing a crucial component of Scope 3 emissions. By identifying the specific materials used in SUDs and RUDs, the authors can better approximate the carbon footprint associated with their production – a factor that is frequently neglected in studies focused solely on the operational phase of medical devices. Furthermore, the study's inclusion of end-of-life incineration emissions for SUDs is particularly noteworthy. The data, sourced from third-party providers, highlights the significant environmental burden posed by the disposal of single-use devices. Incineration, a common method for disposing of medical waste, releases a considerable amount of carbon dioxide and other harmful pollutants, substantially contributing to the overall carbon footprint of SUDs. This finding is crucial, as it illustrates the disproportionate impact of the end-of-life phase on the total emissions of single-use devices – a component of Scope 3 emissions that is rarely accounted for in environmental impact studies. The results of this study are compelling: the carbon footprint of RUDs is 62–82 times lower than that of single-use devices in a scenario of universal SUD use and 10 times lower in a scenario where SUDs are used only occasionally. These findings starkly highlight the environmental advantages of reusables, not only in reducing waste, but also in minimizing the Scope 3 emissions associated with their lifecycle. Yet, the significance of these findings extends beyond the specific context of duodenoscopes. They prompt a broader reflection on the healthcare industry's approach to environmental sustainability. The overwhelming focus on direct emissions and operational efficiency has led to an underestimation of the true environmental impact of medical devices. When an endoscopy company advertises its commitment to sustainability, it often emphasizes grand visions of solar power and recycling. Should we be impressed? Not necessarily. The elephant in the room is the carbon emissions from the value chain. In fact, 82% of healthcare emissions come from the supply chain of medical devices [2]. What was not highlighted in the study by López-Muñoz et al. is the significant contribution of electronic components (e.g. semiconductors, wires, etc.), which are typically manufactured by suppliers and then assembled into each SUD at a local plant. These components require substantial amounts of energy and water to manufacture, are often transported across continents, and are challenging to recycle after use. It is no surprise that electronic components account for most of the emissions from an SUD [3]. Recycling itself is tricky; in many countries, there is no third-party accountability for best practices and, in certain instances, recycling electronic components can emit more pollution than producing new ones [4]. By neglecting Scope 3 emissions, we risk overlooking substantial sources of carbon output, thereby undermining efforts to achieve meaningful reductions in the healthcare sector's overall carbon footprint. Addressing this requires a more comprehensive approach to environmental assessm -Abstract Truncated-

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
How green is my reusable bronchoscope?

Nicolas Massart,Christophe Millet,Hélène Beloeil,Pierre Fillatre,Caroline Rouxel,Magalie Daudin,Nicolas Coullier,Véronique Marie,Elodie Peguet,Pierre Bardoult

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accpm.2024.101420

IF: 7.025

2024-07-01

Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine

Abstract:Introduction Single-use bronchoscopes have replaced reusable ones in many institutions. This study aimed to evaluate the environmental and financial impacts of both strategies: reusable and single-use bronchoscopes. Material and methods We conducted a pragmatic study in a 21-bed polyvalent ICU, in Saint-Brieuc, Bretagne, France. The eco-audit consisted of estimating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, considering the life cycle of each strategy. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to construction, packaging, transport and waste elimination were compared between 2 devices: the reusable bronchoscope, a Pentax® FI-16RBS that was disinfected twice daily; and the single-use bronchoscope, the bronchoflex agile® from TSC. Results For the reusable bronchoscope, GHG emissions were marginally impacted by the number of bronchoscopies performed (from 185 kg eq.CO2 per year to 192 kg eq.CO2 for 10 or 110 bronchoscopies per year). For the reusable device, GHG emissions directly depended on the number of bronchoscopies performed with 3.82 kg eq.CO2 emitted per bronchoscopy. The breakeven point for the reusable bronchoscope was estimated at 50 bronchoscopies in terms of GHG emissions and 96 bronchoscopies for financial considerations. Conclusion Considering current practice in our ICU, reusable bronchoscopes have lower GHG emissions when used more than 50 times a year and a lower cost when used more than 96 times a year as compared with single-use bronchoscopes.

critical care medicine,anesthesiology
Mannose-binding lectin and susceptibility to human retrovirus infections.

A. Vallinoto,M. Ishak,R. Ishak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0037-8682-0136-2014

2014-05-01

Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical

Abstract:One of the major goals for the future of medicine is the prediction of susceptibility, resistance, increased transmission risk, infection, and disease on an individual basis to provide personalized medical, drug-based treatment. To do this, relevant information must be available.Mannose binding lectin (MBL) is a liver-derived pluripotent serum lectin and molecule of the innate response system. It binds with high affinity to mannose or other sugar components on the surface of viruses, bacteria, and yeasts and mediates phagocytosis or activates the lectin pathway of the complement system
Environmental impact of small-bowel capsule endoscopy

Mathieu Pioche,João A. Cunha Neves,Heiko Pohl,Minh Quyen,Raphaelle Grau,Xavier Dray,Clara Yzet,Mikael Mochet,Jeremie Jacques,Timothee Wallenhorst,Jérôme Rivory,Nadege Siret,Anne-laure Peillet,Jean-Baptiste Chevaux,Francois Mion,Ulriikka Chaput,Philippe Jacob,Daniel Grinberg,Jean-Christophe Saurin,Robin Baddeley,Enrique Rodriguez de Santiago,Pierre-Jean Cottinet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2313-5142

2024-04-24

Endoscopy

Abstract:Introduction: The environmental impact of endoscopy, including small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), has gained attention due to its contribution to the global carbon footprint. This study aimed to evaluate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (kgCO2e) of SBCE, including devices life cycle and capsule journey. Methods: SBCE devices (3 brands) were evaluated using life cycle assessment methodology (ISO 14040), including patient travelling, bowel preparation, capsule examination and video recording. A survey was conducted on 120 patients undergoing a SBCE to gather data on their transportation, activities during the procedure, and awareness of pollution generated and on 87 physicians reading capsules. Results: For the 3 different capsules, the weight was 4 g (3.9-5.2% of total), while 43 to 119 g were attributed for packaging (9-97%) including 5 g of deactivation magnets (4-6%) and 11 to 50 g for instruction forms (40%). A full SBCE generated between 19 and 20 kgCO2e, including 0.04 kgCO2e (0.2%) for the capsule itself and 18 kgCO2e related to patient travelling (94.7%). Capsule retrieval would add 0.98 kgCO2e using dedicated devices. Capsule deconstruction revealed components (e.g. Neodymium) that are prohibited from environmental disposal. 76% of patients were not aware of the illegal nature of flushing capsules, and 63% would be willing to retrieve it. Data storage and physician impact were negligible. Conclusion: The GHG emission of SBCE is mainly determined by patient travelling. The capsule device itself has a comparably low carbon footprint. Considering capsule components disposal is illegal, retrieval of the capsule seems crucial but increasing device-related emissions.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Making minimally invasive procedures more sustainable: A systematic review comparing the environmental footprint of single‐use versus multi‐use instruments

Russell Seth Martins,Hashim Salar,Musa Salar,Jeffrey Luo,Kostantinos Poulikidis,Syed Shahzad Razi,M. Jawad Latif,Kyle Tafuri,Faiz Y. Bhora

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.12286

IF: 3.282

2024-07-20

World Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Background Healthcare systems contribute 5%–10% of the global carbon footprint. Given the detrimental impact of climate change on population health, health systems must seek to address this environmental responsibility. This is especially relevant in the modern era of minimally invasive procedures (MIP) where single‐use instruments are increasingly popular. We compared the environmental footprint of single‐use versus multi‐use instruments in MIP. Methods We conducted a systematic review across five databases to identify relevant original studies, following the PRISMA guidelines. We extracted environmental impact data and performed a quality assessment of included studies. Results We included 13 studies published between 2005 and 2024. Eight employed Life Cycle Analysis (LCAs), which is the gold standard methodology for studies evaluating environmental impact. The instruments studied included laparoscopy systems, endoscopes, cystoscopes, bronchoscopes, duodenoscopes, and ureteroscopes. Six studies, including three high quality LCAs and one fair quality LCA, showed that single‐use instruments have a significantly higher environmental footprint than their multi‐use counterparts. Six studies suggested a lower environmental footprint for single‐use instruments, and one study presented comparable results. However, these studies were of poor/fair quality. Conclusion Although our systematic review yielded mixed results, all high quality LCAs suggested multi‐use instruments may be more environmentally friendly than their single‐use counterparts. Our findings are limited by inter‐study heterogeneity and methodological quality. There is an urgent need for additional research employing gold standard methodologies to explore the interplay between environmental impact and operational factors such as workflow efficiency and cost‐benefit ratio to allow health systems to make more informed decisions.

surgery
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

Victoria Jahrreiss,Pierre Sarrot,Niall F Davis,Bhaskar K Somani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2023.0274

2024-01-09

Journal of Endourology

Abstract:Introduction: There is a lack of data on the environmental impact of single-use flexible cystoscopes. We wanted to review the existing literature about carbon footprint of flexible cystoscopy and to analyse the environmental impact of the Isiris® (Coloplast) single-use flexible cystoscope compared to the one of reusable flexible cystoscopes. Methods: First, a systematic review on single-use and reusable cystoscope carbon footprint was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Secondly, carbon footprints of Isiris® single-use flexible cystoscope and reusable cystoscope were analysed and compared. Life cycle of the single-use flexible cystoscope was divided in 3 steps: Manufacturing, sterilization, and disposal. For the reusable cystoscope, several steps were considered to estimate the carbon footprint over the life cycle: Manufacturing, washing/sterilization, repackaging, repair and disposal. For each step, the carbon footprint values were collected and adapted from previous comparable published data on flexible ureteroscope. Results: The systematic literature review evidenced total carbon emissions within range of 2.06-2.41 kg CO2 per each use of single-use flexible cystoscope compared to a wide range of 0.53-4.23 kg CO2 per each case of reusable flexible cystoscope. The carbon footprint comparative analysis between Isiris® single-use flexible cystoscope and reusable cystoscope concluded in favour of the single-use cystoscope. Based on our calculation, the total carbon emissions for a reusable flexible cystoscope could be refined to an estimated range of 2.40 – 3.99 kg CO2 per case, depending on the endoscopic activity of the unit, and to 1.76 kg CO2 per case for Isiris® single-use cystoscope. Conclusion: The systematic literature review demonstrated disparate results depending on the calculation method used for carbon footprint analysis. However, the results tend rather towards a lower environmental impact of single-use devices. In comparison to a reusable flexible cystoscope, Isiris® compared favorably in terms of carbon footprint.

urology & nephrology
Perspectives and awareness of endoscopy healthcare professionals on sustainable practices in gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of the LEAFGREEN survey

João A. Cunha Neves,Enrique Rodriguez de Santiago,Heiko Pohl,Vicente Lorenzo-Zúñiga,Miguel F. Cunha,Andrei M. Voiosu,Christoph Römmele,Douglas G. Penman,Eduardo Albéniz,Keith Siau,Leigh Donnelly,Luca Elli,Mathieu Pioche,Ulrike Beilenhoff,Marianna Arvanitakis,Bas L.A.M. Weusten,Raf Bisschops,Cesare Hassan,Helmut Messmann,Ian M. Gralnek,Mário Dinis-Ribeiro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2240-9414

2024-01-28

Endoscopy

Abstract:Background Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is one of healthcare's main contributors to climate change. We aimed to assess healthcare professionals' attitudes and the perceived barriers to implementation of sustainable GI endoscopy. Methods The LEAFGREEN web-based survey was a cross-sectional study conducted by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Green Endoscopy Working Group. The questionnaire comprised 39 questions divided into five sections (respondent demographics; climate change and sustainability beliefs; waste and resource management; single-use endoscopes and accessories; education and research). The survey was available via email to all active members of the ESGE and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) in March 2023. Results 407 respondents participated in the survey (11% response rate). Most participants (86%) agreed climate change is real and anthropogenic, but one-third did not consider GI endoscopy to be a significant contributor to climate change. Improvement in the appropriateness of endoscopic procedures (41%) and reduction in single-use accessories (34%) were considered the most important strategies to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. Respondents deemed lack of institutional support and knowledge from staff to be the main barriers to sustainable endoscopy. Strategies to reduce unnecessary GI endoscopic procedures and comparative studies of single-use versus reusable accessories were identified as research priorities. Conclusions In this survey, ESGE and ESGENA members acknowledge climate change as a major threat to humanity. Further improvement in sustainability beliefs and professional attitudes, reduction in inappropriate GI endoscopy, and rational use of single-use accessories and endoscopes are critically required. Received: 19 July 2023 Accepted after revision: 07 December 2023 Article published online: 26 January 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Life cycle assessment of routinely used endoscopic instruments and simple intervention to reduce our environmental impact

Pedro López-Muñoz,Rubén Martín-Cabezuelo,Vicente Lorenzo-Zúñiga,Guillermo Vilariño-Feltrer,Isabel Tort-Ausina,Ana Vidaurre,Vicente Pons Beltran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2023-329544

IF: 24.5

2023-04-26

Gut

Abstract:Objectives GI endoscopy units represent the third largest producers of medical waste. We aimed to determine endoscopic instrument composition and life cycle assessment (LCA) and to assess a sustainability proposal based on a mark on the instruments that identifies parts can be safely recycled or ‘ green mark ’. Design Material composition analysis and LCA of forceps, snares and clips from four different manufacturers (A–D) were performed with four different methods. Carbon footprint from production, transportation and end of life of these instruments was calculated. In 30 consecutive procedures, we marked the contact point with the working channel. 5 cm away from that point was considered as green mark . One-week prospective study was conducted with 184 procedures evaluating 143 instruments (75 forceps, 49 snares and 19 haemoclips) to assess the efficacy of this recyclable mark. Results Composition from different manufacturers varied widely. Most common materials were high global warming potential (GWP) waste (polyethylene, polypropylene and acrylonitrile) and low GWP waste (stainless steel). Significant differences were found for the forceps (0.31–0.47 kg of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 -eq)) and haemoclips (0.41–0.57 kg CO 2 -eq) between the manufacturers. Green mark was established 131.26 cm for gastroscope and 195.32 cm for colonoscope. One-week activity produced 67.74 kg CO 2 -eq. Applying our sustainability intervention, we could reduce up to 27.44% (18.26 kg CO 2 -eq). This allows the recycling of 61.7% of the instrument total weight (4.69 kg). Conclusion Knowledge of carbon footprint is crucial to select the most sustainable alternatives because there are large variations between brands. A mark to identify recyclable parts could reduce our environmental impact significantly.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Green endoscopy, one step toward a sustainable future: Literature review

Marcello Maida,Alessandro Vitello,Endrit Shahini,Roberto Vassallo,Emanuele Sinagra,Socrate Pallio,Giuseppinella Melita,Daryl Ramai,Marco Spadaccini,Cesare Hassan,Antonio Facciorusso

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2303-8621

2024-08-23

Abstract:Rapid climate change or climate crisis is one of the most serious emergencies of the 21st century, accounting for highly impactful and irreversible changes worldwide. Climate crisis can also affect the epidemiology and disease burden of gastrointestinal diseases because they have a connection with environmental factors and nutrition. Gastrointestinal endoscopy is a highly intensive procedure with a significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Moreover, endoscopy is the third highest generator of waste in healthcare facilities with significant contributions to carbon footprint. The main sources of direct carbon emission in endoscopy are use of high-powered consumption devices (e.g. computers, anesthesia machines, wash machines for reprocessing, scope processors, and lighting) and waste production derived mainly from use of disposable devices. Indirect sources of emissions are those derived from heating and cooling of facilities, processing of histological samples, and transportation of patients and materials. Consequently, sustainable endoscopy and climate change have been the focus of discussions between endoscopy providers and professional societies with the aim of taking action to reduce environmental impact. The term "green endoscopy" refers to the practice of gastroenterology that aims to raise awareness, assess, and reduce endoscopy´s environmental impact. Nevertheless, while awareness has been growing, guidance about practical interventions to reduce the carbon footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy are lacking. This review aims to summarize current data regarding the impact of endoscopy on GHG emissions and possible strategies to mitigate this phenomenon. Further, we aim to promote the evolution of a more sustainable "green endoscopy".
Gastrectomy and Iron Absorption

E. Rieber,M. Conrad,W. Crosby

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3181/00379727-124-31796

1967-02-01

Abstract:Summary Gastrectomized rats developed iron deficiency because of decreased absorption of iron. Although these animals absorbed almost normal quantities of iron from test doses when they were iron replete, they were unable to increase absorption of iron appropriately in response to iron depletion. This suggested that iron deficiency occurred after gas-trectomy because of an inability to adjust absorption in response to changes in the body requirement.
Endoscopic partial adenoidectomy for children with submucous cleft palate.

Y. Finkelstein,D. Wexler,A. Nachmani,D. Ophir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(2002)039<0479:EPAFCW>2.0.CO;2

2002-09-01

The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal

Abstract:OBJECTIVE Children with submucous cleft palate who suffer from chronic nasal obstruction because of hypertrophic adenoids usually are not subjected to adenoidectomy because of the fear of postoperative velopharyngeal insufficiency. These patients present a therapeutic challenge because we are aware more than ever of the importance of normal nasal breathing and nocturnal respiration, especially during childhood. Our hypothesis was that transnasal endoscopic horizontal limited adenoidectomy may relieve nasal obstruction while preserving the function of the velopharyngeal valve. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of transnasal endoscopic horizontal partial adenoidectomy in patients with submucous cleft palate and adenoidal hypertrophy. SETTING Patients were either referred to the outpatient clinic of the Palate Surgery Unit (seven patients) or were patients referred to the senior author's (Y.F.) private clinic. All the patients had been operated on by this senior author (Y.F.). PATIENTS Ten children aged 3.5 to 13 years (six girls and four boys) with submucous cleft palate and hypertrophic adenoids were included in the study. All the patients were hyponasal and suffered nasal obstruction, loud snoring, and episodes of apnea. INTERVENTIONS Endoscopic partial adenoidectomy was accomplished to open the lower third of the choanae. Nasal breathing was achieved in all the patients, and only mild snoring remained in two patients. The hyponasality disappeared and speech intelligibility normalized. Mild hypernasality developed in two patients but was still perceived as an overall improvement in speech. CONCLUSIONS Transnasal endoscopic horizontal partial adenoidectomy may be an effective surgical method for relief of nasal obstruction while preserving velopharyngeal valve function in patients with submucous cleft palate who suffer from obstructive adenoids.
Charting a greener path: ESGE and ESGENA's vision for sustainable gastrointestinal endoscopy

João A. Cunha Neves,Enrique Rodríguez de Santiago

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2283-7327

2024-09-02

Endoscopy

Abstract:As the climate crisis casts an ever-growing shadow over our planet, it is imperative for all sectors, including healthcare, to reassess their impact on the environment and redefine their practices. Healthcare, a field intrinsically linked to the well-being of humanity, finds itself at a crossroads. The necessity to harmonize healing with environmental stewardship is paramount, compelling the medical community to innovate and adopt sustainable practices. In this critical context, the role of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, with its significant environmental footprint, comes into sharp focus, prompting a transformative journey towards sustainability [1]. A mere five years ago, the notion of 'green endoscopy' was virtually unheard of. Today, it stands at the forefront of GI forums. Tomorrow, 'green endoscopy' must be the norm. We may still be at the inception of this concept, yet undeniable data about our professional activities' environmental toll exists. It is estimated that an endoscopic procedure can produce up to 30 kg of CO2e, significantly driven by staff and patient commutes via private fuel-powered vehicles [2]. Moreover, the ecological footprint of each endoscopic biopsy [3] or unnecessary endoscopic procedures [4] are becoming increasingly evident. Additionally, the prevalent use of 'single-use' endoscopy devices adds significantly to the burden. This has been further intensified by the recent release of single-use endoscopes under the premise of 'net zero' infection risk. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) have stepped forward, recognizing the urgency to reconcile our core mission of improving health with environmental stewardship. ESGE and ESGENA's commitment is multi-dimensional, striving to bring about a paradigm shift in perception and practice. ESGE and ESGENA embarked on this journey by being the first GI scientific societies to release a collaborative position statement on reducing the environmental footprint of GI endoscopy [5]. This is an effort aimed at not only raising awareness but also delineating a clear trajectory towards environmentally conscious endoscopy practices [5]. This ESGE/ESGENA position statement emphasizes the need for a holistic approach in GI endoscopy, addressing all aspects from clinical procedures and logistics to resource utilization and waste management. It also highlights the importance of incorporating research into this framework, ensuring a comprehensive strategy for sustainable endoscopy practice. The statement is a clarion call to action, urging all agents involved to integrate sustainability into every aspect of GI endoscopy, aligning the practice with the broader, more profound goals of healthcare. The responsibility of ESGE on providing further guidance and raising awareness on sustainable GI endoscopy has subsequently led to the development of the ESGE Green Endoscopy Working Group. Our first research project as a working group revealed that most endoscopists agree that climate change is real and anthropogenic, yet interestingly, one-third did not consider GI endoscopy to be a significant contributor to climate change [6]. Also, the current general lack of institutional support and knowledge from endoscopy unit staff regarding sustainable endoscopy practice were identified as the main barriers to green endoscopy [6]. The need of a thorough mindset change seems clear. But turning ideas into reality encompasses much more and embracing this societal change is not without challenges. The path is fraught with logistical hurdles, financial constraints, and the inertia of established endoscopy practices. Yet, it is a path brimming with opportunities. Adopting sustainable practices in GI endoscopy can lead to significant cost savings, enhance patient safety and quality of care, and bolster the public image of healthcare institutions. The mindful commitment of ESGE and ESGENA to promote this endeavor was prominently discussed at the European Parliament in September 2023, highlighting the societies' vision of a future defined by sustainable healthcare excellence. As ESGE/ESGENA look ahead, we do so with a clear, actionable roadmap ([Fig. 1]). The societies' specific aims for the next two years reflect a pragmatic, yet ambitious approach. From reducing the environmental footprint of its own activities to nurturing an educational and research ecosystem in green endoscopy. Since 2023, the focus on reducing the environmental impact of ESGE Days has become a priority. Several measures have been implemented, from reducing giveaways and prioritizing digital signage, to partnerships with service providers and venues with renowned and accredited sustainability policies. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of face-to-face interaction, but it has also shown the value of hybrid formats. This -Abstract Truncated-

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
A systematic review comparing the safety, cost and carbon footprint of disposable and reusable laparoscopic devices

Pauline Chauvet,Audrey Enguix,Valérie Sautou,Karem Slim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2023.10.006

IF: 3.115

2024-01-26

Journal of Visceral Surgery

Abstract:Summary Introduction The objective of this systematic review of the literature is to compare a selection of currently utilized disposable and reusable laparoscopic medical devices in terms of safety (1st criteria), cost and carbon footprint. Material and methods A search was carried out on electronic databases for articles published up until 6 May 2022. The eligible works were prospective (randomized or not) or retrospective clinical or medical-economic comparative studies having compared disposable scissors, trocars, and mechanical endoscopic staplers to the same instruments in reusable. Two different independent examiners extracted the relevant data. Results Among the 2882 articles found, 156 abstracts were retained for examination. After comprehensive analysis concerning the safety and effectiveness of the instruments, we included four articles. A study on trocars highlighted increased vascular complications with disposable instruments, and another study found more perioperative incidents with a hybrid stapler as opposed to a disposable stapler. As regards cost analysis, we included 11 studies, all of which showed significantly higher costs with disposable instruments. The results of the one study on carbon footprints showed that hybrid instruments leave four times less of a carbon footprint than disposable instruments. Conclusion The literature on the theme remains extremely limited. Our review demonstrated that from a medical and economic standpoint, reusable medical instruments, particularly trocars, presented appreciable advantages. While there exist few data on the ecological impact, those that do exist are unmistakably favorable to reusable instruments.

surgery
Capsule endoscopy emissions: less than expected and largely influenced by patient transport

Vicente Lorenzo-Zúñiga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2336-4320

2024-06-20

Endoscopy

Abstract:Small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is a common noninvasive method, based on a single-use consumable, which has transformed the way we track gastrointestinal diseases since its introduction in 2000 [1]. However, as with any other medical supplies, it is crucial to consider the environmental footprint using a standardized approach to assessment of the net greenhouse gas (GHG) emission profile of each procedure, following the current ESGE Green Endoscopy Position Statement [2]. In this issue of Endoscopy , Pioche et al. prospectively performed an eco-audit to quantify the environmental emissions relating to device manufacturing, transportation, and recycling, bowel preparation, and patient travel involved in an SBCE examination for three different brands of device [3]. The study showed that the impact is mainly determined by patient travel, while in comparison the capsule device itself has a low carbon footprint. A full SBCE generated around 20 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 ), which included 0.2% for the capsule itself and 94.7% generated by patient travel. This was determined through an ISO14040-based life cycle assessment [4] and a patient survey. The manufacturing process in which the capsule and its packaging are produced remains largely unexplored; however, it is essential to consider the energy consumption, waste generation, and sourcing of materials during this process, as the environmental impact begins with the extraction and refinement of individual components (plastics, electronic components, and batteries). Once manufactured, the capsules need to be transported to healthcare facilities (including shipping and delivery). Prior to the procedure, patients are required to follow a low-fiber diet and take a bowel preparation solution that also has environmental impacts needing to be considered. Furthermore, patients have to travel to the hospital and the device needs to be recycled. "Further discussion involving manufacturers is required in order to implement proper waste management and recycling of the capsule endoscope components." The capsule procedure (including the device and bowel preparation) has relatively low GHG emissions (approximately 1 kgCO 2 , accounting for 5% of the total), far less than expected and comparable among the three evaluated capsule brands (PillCam SB3, CapsoCam, and NaviCam). When the packaging is considered, the emissions rise from 0.04 kgCO 2 to 0.29 kgCO 2 , mainly owing to the neodymium-made recyclable magnet that is included with each capsule to keep it inactive. Additionally, device shipping from the manufacturing site to the endoscopy unit added 0.48 kgCO 2 and bowel preparation a further 0.28 kgCO 2 . The GHG emissions of SBCE are largely determined by patient travel (18 kgCO 2 ; 95% of the total), raising concerns about transportation. Patient travel to and from endoscopy units is an area that requires attention as it has an environmental footprint that should not be overlooked, while physician travel does not significantly increase the impact. In another French study, patients' modes of transport also emerged as the highest carbon footprint emitter for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures [5]. Many patients arrive at endoscopy units using private vehicles, which contribute to carbon emissions. To reduce this need for travel and its associated emissions, healthcare providers need to ensure the appropriateness of procedures and avoid those that are unnecessary; where possible, they should explore telemedicine options, allowing patients to ingest the capsule at home and transmit data remotely to reduce the overall carbon footprint. Artificial intelligence (AI) models could also be used to improve the more administrative aspects of healthcare by efficiently managing patient appointments and procedure sequencing to minimize energy consumption, reduce patient waiting times, and improve overall resource efficiency. In this regard, while endoscopy-related patient travel has been identified as a modifiable contributor to GHG emissions, there are few data investigating the scale of the pre-endoscopy patient travel footprint. It can however be reduced by online health education to minimize patient commutes [6]. The LEAFGREEN survey among ESGE and ESGENA members' forces us to improve the appropriateness of endoscopic procedures and rational use of single-use accessories [7]. This study highlights the importance of global assessment of the carbon footprint. The capsule device itself contributes less to GHG emissions than expected. Device waste mainly comes from packaging, especially the instruction forms (40% of the total). More efficient packaging design and recycling of packaging within endoscopy units could further decrease GHG emissions. Future strategies should rely on the purchase of green products with minimal enviro -Abstract Truncated-

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Comparison of utility and organizational impact of reusable and single-use rhinolaryngoscopes in a tertiary otorhinolaryngology department

Gunnhildur Gudnadottir,Louise Hafsten,Helena Dahl Travis,Kirsten Nielsen,Johan Hellgren

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1380571

2024-10-07

Abstract:Background: Flexible rhinolaryngoscopes are an important tool in otolaryngology. In recent years, single-use rhinolaryngoscopes (SURLs), which have been developed as an alternative to reusable scopes (RRLs), offer various advantages including less risk of contamination and elimination of the need for cleaning and reprocessing between procedures. This study aimed to compare procedure efficiency, organizational impact, and economic impact between SURLs and RRLs used for elective procedures conducted outside the otorhinolaryngology department in the hospital environment. Methods: In this randomized prospective study, either type of endoscope was tested by on-call otolaryngologists over a total of twelve weeks. The organizational impact was investigated using a quantitative research design. All categories of stakeholders responded to specific surveys based on profession; these included doctors (n = 13), those in managerial positions (n = 3), and other healthcare staff including technicians and nurses (n = 11). A micro-costing approach was used to evaluate resource utilization and cost of services. The trial was uploaded to clinicaltrials.gov (ID number: NCT0519821, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05198219?intr=rhinolaryngo&rank=1). Results: Overall, 14 and 12 procedures were performed using the SURLs and RRLs, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the endoscopes in terms of procedure duration, reported image quality, or maneuverability. The SURLs were significantly superior in terms of four organizational impact parameters, namely, modes of cooperation and communication, vigilance and monitoring methods, working conditions and safety, and logistics. The estimated per-procedure cost of the RRLs was SEK 536 (€ 34,68). Conclusion: The cost and effectiveness of RRLs and SURLs is influenced by the healthcare setting, procedure volume, and duration of device use. The adoption of SURLs can improve safety, streamline processes, and potentially reduce the risk of disease transmission.
Sustainability of Single-Use Endoscopes

Deepak Agrawal,Zhouwen Tang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tige.2021.06.001

2021-01-01

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Abstract:Interest in single-use, disposable endoscopes has been growing due to concerns about infection transmission with reusable endoscopes. Yet valid concerns remain about the sustainability of single-use endoscopes in the form of long-term economic, environmental, and social consequences, even with the assumption that single-use endoscopes eliminate infection risk completely, are technically equivalent, and are cost-neutral to patients and hospitals when compared with reusable endoscopes. Economic sustainability extends beyond the per unit cost of single-use endoscopes to the concept of economic growth without adverse effects on the environment and society. Environmental sustainability is responsibly interacting with the planet to protect and conserve natural resources to support health and well-being, now and in the future. Environmental sustainability is influenced by all stages in the life cycle of an endoscope including manufacturing, transport, use, and disposal, most of which remains obscured to hospitals and physicians. Social sustainability, the recognition of and a commitment to, ensure that new medical devices are available to all patients and that the manufacture, use, and disposal of medical devices does not harm others, particularly vulnerable populations. Physicians and hospitals deliberating the adoption of single-use endoscopes should carefully consider the full extent of sustainability and long-term consequences in their discussions.
The Impact of Single-Use Cystoscopes on Clinical Time Workflow in an Outpatient Setting

Robert Medairos,Francois Soto-Palou,David L. Barquin,Ezra J. Margolin,Rachel Locascio,Jodi Antonelli,Glenn Preminger,Michael Lipkin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2024.03.033

IF: 2.633

2024-04-22

Urology

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the change in overall clinical encounter time and clinical capacity after transitioning to single-use cystoscopes (Ambu A/S, Ballerup, Denmark) in an outpatient urology setting. Methods A single-institution prospective study in an outpatient urology procedure clinic was performed. Discrete categories for each portion of nursing care responsibilities were defined, and time spent during each category was recorded. Two separate clinic days were observed and analyzed: one where the clinic exclusively used reusable cystoscopes and the other after the transition to single-use cystoscopes occurred. Additionally, clinic schedules were reviewed from all procedure clinics in the 3-month periods before and after the transition to single-use cystoscopes. Outcomes included overall clinical encounter time and the number of procedures per clinic day. Results There were 12 flexible cystoscopies performed during each of the observed clinic days. Preliminary cystoscope cleaning and transportation tasks by nursing staff were eliminated when utilizing single-use cystoscopes. Average total encounter time decreased from 66 to 44 minutes, resulting in a 34% reduction in clinical encounter time. The median number of flexible cystoscopy procedures increased after the transition from 9 (IQR 7-12) to 16 (IQR 11-17), representing a 78% increase (p=0.003). Conclusions Transition to a completely single-use cystoscopy outpatient procedure clinic improved clinical efficiency and facilitated an increased number of procedures per clinic day.

urology & nephrology

[Postoperative care during the first few days: the main functions].

A Second Family with Autosomal Dominant Burning Feet Syndrome

Determination of Atomic Distributions in Liquid Lead‐Bismuth Alloys by Neutron and X‐Ray Diffraction

The carbon footprint of ambulatory gastrointestinal endoscopy

Unveiling the hidden impact: Scope 3 emissions in endoscopy

How green is my reusable bronchoscope?

Mannose-binding lectin and susceptibility to human retrovirus infections.

Environmental impact of small-bowel capsule endoscopy

Making minimally invasive procedures more sustainable: A systematic review comparing the environmental footprint of single‐use versus multi‐use instruments

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

Perspectives and awareness of endoscopy healthcare professionals on sustainable practices in gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of the LEAFGREEN survey

Life cycle assessment of routinely used endoscopic instruments and simple intervention to reduce our environmental impact

Green endoscopy, one step toward a sustainable future: Literature review

Gastrectomy and Iron Absorption

Endoscopic partial adenoidectomy for children with submucous cleft palate.

Charting a greener path: ESGE and ESGENA's vision for sustainable gastrointestinal endoscopy

A systematic review comparing the safety, cost and carbon footprint of disposable and reusable laparoscopic devices

Capsule endoscopy emissions: less than expected and largely influenced by patient transport

Comparison of utility and organizational impact of reusable and single-use rhinolaryngoscopes in a tertiary otorhinolaryngology department

Sustainability of Single-Use Endoscopes

The Impact of Single-Use Cystoscopes on Clinical Time Workflow in an Outpatient Setting