ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Environmental and economic impact of validated endoscope storage systems: a life cycle assessment and scenario analysis of avoided morning reprocessing.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsValidated storage systems allow prolonged microbiologically safe storage of thermosensitive endoscopes and may avoid repeated morning reprocessing in countries where an additional disinfection cycle is required before first use. We performed a life cycle assessment (LCA) comparing validated endoscope storage systems and modeled the environmental and economic consequences of avoiding repeated morning reprocessing.
methodsAn ISO 14040/44-compliant LCA compared three validated storage technologies: two drying and storage cabinets (steris endodry and wassenburg dry 300D) and plasma typhoon (PT) with PlasmaBag storage. Storage impacts were evaluated from 24 h to 7 days. To assess the consequences of avoiding morning reprocessing, storage results were integrated into a scenario analysis using the carbon footprint of one additional reprocessing cycle derived from a previously published ISO-compliant LCA. Economic analysis included equipment acquisition, consumables, and avoided reprocessing costs. Outcomes were modeled for a representative European endoscopy unit performing 8000 procedures annually.
resultsThe 24-h storage carbon footprint was 0.93 kg CO
conclusionsWhere repeated morning reprocessing is routinely required, validated storage systems may substantially reduce the environmental burden of endoscope reprocessing. Their economic impact depends largely on consumable utilization and organizational practice, supporting joint environmental and financial assessment when implementing storage strategies. These findings derive from a scenario analysis reflecting practice in several European countries and may not be generalizable to healthcare systems where additional morning reprocessing is not routinely performed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42834180What 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.