Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39638871›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2024

Environmental impact of current endoscopic technology in urological procedures: a systematic review on reusable vs. disposable scopes.

Arthur Peyrottes, Thibaut Long-Depaquit, Benjamin Pradère, Nadia Abid, Franck Bladou, Franck Bruyère, Bertrand De Graeve, Mehdi Djourhi, Florence Encatassamy, Éric Lechevallier and 12 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Reused disposable ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery: A new concept arises?Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Arthur Peyrottes *Department of Urology, Service d'urologie Et de Transplantation Rénale, St. Louis Hospital, University of Paris, 1 Avenue Claude Vellefaux, 75010, Paris, France. arthur.peyrottes@aphp.fr.
Thibaut Long-Depaquit *Department of Urology, APHM, North Academic Hospital, Marseille, France.
Benjamin PradèreDepartment of Urology, UROSUD, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint Fonsegrives, France.
Nadia AbidDepartment of Urology, Hôpital Édouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Franck BladouDepartment of Urology, Pellegrin University Hospital, Bordeaux, France.
Franck BruyèreDepartment of Urology, University of Tours, Tours, France.
Bertrand De GraeveDepartment of Urology, UroGard, Nimes, France.
Mehdi DjourhiDepartment of Urology, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC, Grenoble, France.
Florence EncatassamyDepartment of Urology, University of Tours, Tours, France.
Éric LechevallierDepartment of Urology, Aix-Marseille Université, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France.
Laurent LopezUrology Unit, Clinique Saint Augustin, Bordeaux, France.
Nathalie MartinPharmacy Department, La Conception Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille (AP-HM), Marseille, France.
Paul MeriaDepartment of Urology, Service d'urologie Et de Transplantation Rénale, St. Louis Hospital, University of Paris, 1 Avenue Claude Vellefaux, 75010, Paris, France.
Ugo PinarDepartment of Urology, Sorbonne University, GRC 5 Predictive Onco-Uro, AP-HP, Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, Paris, France.
Thomas PolguerDepartment of Urology, CH Romans-Sur-Isère, Hopitaux Drome Nord, Romans-Sur-Isère, France.
Denis PrunetDepartment of Urology, Clinique Urologie Royan, Royan, France.
Alessandro UleriDepartment of Urology, APHM, North Academic Hospital, Marseille, France.
Vincent MisraiDepartment of Urology, Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France.
Alexandre de la TailleDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Henri Mondor, AP-HP, UPEC, Créteil Cédex, France.
Richard MalletDepartment of Urology, Hopital Privé Francheville, Périgueux, France.
Michael BaboudjianDepartment of Urology, APHM, North Academic Hospital, Marseille, France.
Sustainability Task Force of the French Association of Urology

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Disposable EquipmentEquipment ReuseCarbon FootprintCystoscopesCystoscopyEnvironmentHumansUreteroscopesUreteroscopyUrologic Surgical ProceduresCarbon footprintCystoscopyEndo-urologySustainabilityUreteroscopy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.