SynthesisWorld journal of urology2024
Environmental impact of current endoscopic technology in urological procedures: a systematic review on reusable vs. disposable scopes.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost of reusable vs. single-use ureteroscopes in complex renal surgeries: a randomized cohort study.World journal of urology · 2025Trial
- From fossil to bio-circular plastics: the environmental benefits of bio-attributed acrylonitrile butadiene styrene in single-use cystoscopes.BJU international · 2026Article
- Comparative 30-day life cycle assessment of bladder drainage strategies.BJU international · 2026Article
- Letter to the Editor: "Environmental impact of current endoscopic technology in urological procedures: a systematic review on reusable vs. disposable scopes".World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Reused disposable ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery: A new concept arises?Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo systematically evaluate and synthesize the existing literature on environmental aspects related to urological endoscopy procedures.
methodsA literature search was conducted through January 2024 using PubMed/Medline, and Web of Science databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies.
resultsThe review reveals varying environmental footprints across procedures. In cystoscopy, studies suggest that disposable scopes result in decreased waste and water usage compared to reusable ones. However, life-cycle assessments did not conclusively highlight environmental superiority in favor of disposable devices. This discrepancy might dwell in the reprocessing methods used for the reusable cystoscopes that vary greatly among centers. For ureteroscopy, studies tend to show comparable carbon footprints for disposable and reusable scopes. Regarding transurethral resection of bladder tumors, a shift towards day-case surgery is associated with a substantial reduction in carbon emissions. Transurethral prostatic surgery assessments reveal significant discrepancies in the carbon footprints of disposable minimally invasive surgical devices, highlighting the need for recycling programs and manufacturing modifications.
conclusionsThis review shed light on the necessity to develop strategies to reduce environmental impact such as individual assessments of single-use devices, optimizing reusable scope reprocessing, reconsidering the use of draping during cystoscopies, and minimizing hospital stays. This study serves as a call to industries to conduct similar audits and standardized studies for healthcare products and services, fostering evidence-based decisions to mitigate the environmental impact of urological endoscopy procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39638871What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.