Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Single-Use Ureteroscopy and Environmental Footprint: Review of Current Evidence

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Ureteroscopy is a well-established treatment modality for kidney and ureteric calculi in addition to playing a key role in upper tract cancer diagnostics. Traditional reusable flexible ureteroscopes are technologically advanced and expensive pieces of equipment that require repeat sterilisation and periodical repair. These issues have led to the development of single-use flexible ureteroscopes that are disposed of after each case. Whilst this may be advantageous in many respects, the environmental impact of such technology is yet to be fully determined. The aim of this review is to therefore identify and summarise the available literature concerning the environmental footprint of single-use ureteroscopy.

Recent Findings

To identify the latest research on this topic, a systematic search of world literature was conducted using the Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO databases. PRISMA guidelines were followed and articles were assessed by all authors and relevant study results were included in a narrative format. Only one relevant article was identified and included. This study found that a single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVueTM by Boston Scientific) generated an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide per case to a contemporary reusable flexible ureteroscope.

Summary

Literature concerning the environmental footprint of single-use ureteroscopy is worryingly lacking. No conclusions can be definitively drawn from a single study and further research is imperative given the global climate crisis and the significant contribution that healthcare services have to the environmental problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Pietropaolo A, Bres-Niewada E, Skolarikos A, Liatsikos E, Kallidonis P, Aboumarzouk O, Tailly T, Proietti S, Traxer O, Giusti G, Rukin N, Özsoy M, Talso M, Emre S, Emiliani E, Atis G, Somani B. Worldwide survey of flexible ureteroscopy practice: a survey from European Association of Urology sections of young academic urologists and uro-technology groups. Cent European J Urol. 2019;72(4):393–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Bahaee J, Plott J, Ghani K. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: how to choose and what is around the corner? Curr Opin Urol. 2021;31(2):87–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Butticè S, Sener TE, Netsch C, Emiliani E, Pappalardo R, Magno C. LithoVue™: a new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope. Cent European J Urol. 2016;69(3):302–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Costello A, Abbas M, Allen A, Ball S, Bell S, Bellamy R, Friel S, Groce N, Johnson A, Kett M, Lee M, Levy C, Maslin M, McCoy D, McGuire B, Montgomery H, Napier D, Pagel C, Patel J, de Oliveira J, Redclift N, Rees H, Rogger D, Scott J, Stephenson J, Twigg J, Wolff J, Patterson C. Managing the health effects of climate change: Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission. Lancet. 2009;373(9676):1693–733.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. MacNeill A, Lillywhite R, Brown C. The impact of surgery on global climate: a carbon footprinting study of operating theatres in three health systems. Lancet Planet Health. 2017;1(9):e381–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sherman J, MacNeill A, Thiel C. Reducing pollution from the health care industry. JAMA. 2019;322(11):1043–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff J, Akl E, Brennan S, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw J, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu M, Li T, Loder E, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness L, Stewart L, Thomas J, Tricco A, Welch V, Whiting P, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. • Davis N, McGrath S, Quinlan M, Jack G, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton D. Carbon Footprint in flexible ureteroscopy: a comparative study on the environmental impact of reusable and single-use ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2018;32(3):214-217. The only study that has looked into the environmental impact of single-use ureteroscopy compared to reusable equipment. This study is fully examined in the Results section.

  9. Dragos L, Somani B, Keller E, De Coninck V, Herrero M, Kamphuis G, Bres-Niewada E, Sener E, Doizi S, Wiseman O, Traxer O. Characteristics of current digital single-use flexible ureteroscopes versus their reusable counterparts: an in-vitro comparative analysis. Transl Androl Urol. 2019;8(Suppl 4):S359–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. • Rindorf D, Tailly T, Kamphuis G, Larsen S, Somani B, Traxer O, Koo K. Repair rate and associated costs of reusable flexible ureteroscopes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;37:64-72. An important paper looking at association of repair rates and cost of reusable scopes.

  11. Hennessey D, Fojecki G, Papa N, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton D. Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis. BJU Int. 2018;121(Suppl 3):55–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Martin C, McAdams S, Abdul-Muhsin H, Lim V, Nunez-Nateras R, Tyson M, Humphreys M. The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis. J Urol. 2017;197(3 Pt 1):730–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hogan D, Rauf H, Kinnear N, Hennessey D. The carbon footprint of single-use flexible cystoscopes compared with reusable cystoscopes. J Endourol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2021.0891. Epub ahead of print.

  14. Rizan C, Bhutta MF. Re: The carbon footprint of single-use flexible cystoscopes compared to reusable cystoscopes: methodological flaws led to the erroneous conclusion that single-use is “better”. J Endourol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2022.0482. Epub ahead of print.

  15. Le N, Hernandez L, Vakil N, Guda N, Patnode C, Jolliet O. Environmental and health outcomes of single-use versus reusable duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc. 2022;S0016-5107(22)01765-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2022.06.014. Epub ahead of print.

  16. Namburar S, von Renteln D, Damianos J, Bradish L, Barrett J, Aguilera-Fish A, Cushman-Roisin B, Pohl H. Estimating the environmental impact of disposable endoscopic equipment and endoscopes. Gut. 2022;71(7):1326–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sørensen B, Grüttner H. Comparative study on environmental impacts of reusable and single-use bronchoscopes. Am J Environ Prot. 2018;7(4):55–62.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mazzucchi E, Marchini G, Berto F, Denstedt J, Danilovic A, Vicentini F, Torricelli F, Battagello C, Srougi M, Nahas W. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: update and perspective in developing countries. A narrative review. Int Braz J Urol. 2022;48(3):456-467.

  19. Marchini G, Batagello C, Monga M, Torricelli F, Vicentini F, Danilovic A, Srougi M, Nahas W, Mazzucchi E. In vitro evaluation of single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes: a practical comparison for a patient-centered approach. J Endourol. 2018;32(3):184–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Talso M, Proietti S, Emiliani E, Gallioli A, Dragos L, Orosa A, Servian P, Barreiro A, Giusti G, Montanari E, Somani B, Traxer O. Comparison of flexible ureterorenoscope quality of vision: an in vitro study. J Endourol. 2018;32(6):523–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Baboudjian M, Gondran-Tellier B, Abdallah R, Tadrist A, Sichez P, Akiki A, Gaillet S, Delaporte V, Karsenty G, Lechevallier E, Boissier R. Single use and reusable flexible ureteroscopies for the treatment of urinary stones: a comparative study of perioperative complications. Prog Urol. 2021;31(6):368–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Talso M, Goumas I, Kamphuis G, Dragos L, Tefik T, Traxer O, Somani B. Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group. Transl Androl Urol. 2019;8(Suppl 4):S418–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Wright A, Rukin N, Somani B. Ureteroscopy and stones: current status and future expectations. World J Nephrol. 2014;3(4):243–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Somani B, Robertson A, Kata S. Decreasing the cost of flexible ureterorenoscopic procedures. Urology. 2011;78(3):528–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK

    George Brown, Andrea Ong & Bhaskar Somani

  2. Department of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway

    Patrick Juliebø-Jones

  3. Department of Urology, Beaumont Hospital and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland

    Niall F Davis

  4. University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Andreas Skolarikos

Authors
  1. George Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Ong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrick Juliebø-Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Niall F Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andreas Skolarikos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bhaskar Somani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GB, AO—data collection, writing, PJ, ND, AS—editing, BS—conceptualisation, editing, All authors have reviewed and approved the submitted manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Brown.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors wish to highlight that Professor Bhaskar Somani is an endourology section editor for Current Urology Reports. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

All reported studies/experiments with human or animal subjects performed by the authors have been previously published and complied with all applicable ethical standards (including the Helsinki declaration and its amendments, institutional/national research committee standards, and international/national/institutional guidelines).

Additional information

We confirm that this work has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brown, G., Ong, A., Juliebø-Jones, P. et al. Single-Use Ureteroscopy and Environmental Footprint: Review of Current Evidence. Curr Urol Rep 24, 281–285 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-023-01154-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-023-01154-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation