Life Cycle Assessment of Reusable and Disposable Cystoscopes: A Path to Greener Urological Procedures.

BACKGROUND: The environmental impact of reusable and disposable devices is unclear; reuse is expected to reduce the carbon footprint, but the environmental impact of reprocessing of reusable devices is increasingly being questioned. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to provide the first rigorous life cycle assessment of reusable and disposable flexible cystoscopes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a life cycle assessment of reusable flexible cystoscopes and the aS4C single-use cystoscope (aScope; Ambu, Ballerup, Denmark). For the aScope, the complete lifespan of the scope was evaluated, including raw material extraction, material formulation, component production, product assembly, distribution, transportation after use, and final disposal. For reusable cystoscopes, we limited our analysis to their reprocessing, using a model consisting of standard high-level disinfection with peracetic acid. The environmental impact was evaluated by an independent third-party consulting company APESA (Technopole Hélioparc, Pau, France) dedicated to such risk assessments. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The environmental footprint of both cystoscopes was assessed using five environmental impact categories, namely, climate change, mineral resource depletion, ecotoxicity, acidification, and eutrophication. To perform the life cycle assessment, Simapro v9.3.3 software was used and the Ecoinvent v3.5 database was employed as the primary life cycle inventory database. A Monte Carlo analysis was used to account for the inherent uncertainty in life cycle inventory data and the variability in material and energy consumption for each type of flexible cystoscope. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: By only comparing the disinfection reprocessing of reusable cystoscopes with the complete lifespan of the single-use cystoscope, the use of the aScope would allow a reduction of at least 33% in the climate change category, 50% in the mineral resources' depletion category, 51% in the ecotoxicity category, 71% in the acidification category, and 49% in the eutrophication category. Our results cannot be generalized to all health care facilities as we studied only one type of reprocessing method and one disposable flexible cystoscope. CONCLUSIONS: Disinfection reprocessing of reusable cystoscopes was found to have a significantly larger environmental footprint and impact than the whole lifespan of the single-use cystoscope aScope. PATIENT SUMMARY: Using a cradle-to-grave life cycle analysis, we showed that the environmental footprint of a flexible cystoscopy procedure can be reduced by using a disposable cystoscope instead of a reusable cystoscope.

Cost and Environmental Impact of Disposable Flexible Cystoscopes Compared to Reusable Devices.

Objectives: To quantify the environmental impact and costs associated with flexible cystoscopy procedures from an institutional perspective, with particular attention for the comparison between disposable and reusable cystoscopes. Materials and Methods: This is a single-center retrospective study, including all flexible cystoscopies performed between 2020 and 2021 using reusable or single-use devices. The Ambu aS4C single-use cystoscope (Ballerup, Denmark) gradually replaced the reusable device in our center, with exclusive use from October 2021. Reprocessing costs for reusable cystoscopes were evaluated using a micro-costing approach. The environmental impact of reusable and disposable cystoscopes was assessed by the amount of waste and water consumed for each procedure. Results: A total of 1578 flexible cystoscopies using reusable cystoscopes were performed in 2020, and 550 cystoscopies were performed using the Ambu aS4C cystoscope from October 2021 to February 2022. The cost of flexible cystoscopy with a reusable and a disposable endoscope was €196 and €192, respectively. The amount of waste generated by reprocessing reusable and disposable cystoscopes was 800 and 200 g per procedure, respectively. Water consumption for sterilization of the reusable cystoscope was 60 L per procedure, whereas no water consumption was required with the Ambu aS4C cystoscope. A 100% Ambu aS4C cystoscope use would reduce waste generation and water consumption by 946.8 kg and 94.68 m3 per year. Conclusion: In this study, implementing a strategy of using 100% disposable cystoscopes was associated with similar costs and reduced waste generation and water consumption compared to reusable devices. Future studies are needed to compare the carbon footprint of these devices, through a comprehensive and rigorous life cycle assessment from manufacturing to recycling.