The carbon footprint of single-use and reusable flexible cystoscopes in Australia

Abstract

Objective: Single-use flexible cystoscopes provide a safe and cost-effective evolution to current practice. However, the environmental impact of single-use devices needs to be considered in a healthcare system that is being increasingly scrutinised for its carbon footprint. We performed a single-centre simplified lifecycle analysis to compare the carbon footprint of the single-use Ambu® aScope™ 4 Cysto System (Ambu®) with the reusable Olympus CYF-VH flexible video-cystoscope (Olympus).

Methods: Manufacturing, transportation and waste costs were calculated for the Ambu® cystoscope. Manufacturing costs incorporating the average lifecycle of the reusable cystoscope was included in the carbon footprint calculation for the Olympus reusable cystoscope as were waste costs and re-processing costs using the Soluscope 3 automatic endoscope re-processor that is used in our centre.

Results: Results demonstrate that Ambu® cystoscopes are a carbon-friendly alternative to reusable Olympus cystoscopes, with a 36% lower carbon footprint. The carbon footprint of the Ambu® scope is 1.43 kg CO2 compared with 2.22 kg CO2 for the reusable Olympus cystoscope. These results may vary from centre to centre depending on the cystoscope re-processor used.

Conclusion: The Ambu® single-use flexible cystoscopes provide a carbon-friendly alternative to Olympus CYF-VH reusable cystoscopes.

Research highlights

• "This single-centre study has demonstrated that the Ambu® single-use flexible cystoscopes provide a favourable carbon-friendly alternative to reusable cystoscopes, with a 36% lower carbon footprint than their reusable counterparts."

• "We have demonstrated that when all major identifiable factors are included, a single-use cystoscope has a lower carbon footprint than the reusable counterpart. This suggests that single-use cystoscopes may provide an environmentally sustainable evolution in urology practice."

• "Although the basic manufacturing carbon footprint cost per use between the Ambu® and the Olympus cystoscopes is vastly different (1.18 kg CO2 and 0.02 kg CO2, respectively), once the cleaning of the reusable cystoscope is considered, the carbon footprint of the single-use cystoscope is ultimately lower than that of the reusable cystoscope (1.43 kg CO2 and 2.22 kg CO2, respectively)."

• "It should be noted that the carbon footprint alone does not include all the parameters that need to be considered when assessing total environmental impact. Future studies may wish to include the impact on fossil fuel depletion during manufacturing, total water consumption throughout the lifecycle to assess the impact on freshwater depletion, land system change and potential loss of habitat as a result of landfill – all of which contribute further to the overall environmental impact."

Methods & Results

For a complete summary of this data source and to see reported environmental impact values for studied products and activities, explore the HealthcareLCA Database.

Citation

Bischofberger S, Adshead F, Moore K, Kocaman M, Casali G, Tong C, Roy S, Collins M, Brunner W. Assessing the environmental impact of an anastomotic leak care pathway. Surgery Open Science. 2023 Jul 11.