Environmental footprint and material composition comparison of single-use and reusable duodenoscopes.

Abstract

Infection outbreaks associated with contaminated reusable duodenoscopes (RUDs) have induced the development of novel single-use duodenoscopes (SUDs). This study aimed to analyze the material composition and life cycle assessment (LCA) of RUDs and SUDs to assess the sustainability of global and partial SUD implementation. A single-center study evaluated material composition analysis and LCA of one RUD and two SUDs from different manufacturers (A/B). Material composition analysis was performed to evaluate the thermochemical properties of the duodenoscope components. The carbon footprint was calculated using environmental software. We compared the sustainability strategies of universal use of RUDs, frequent use of RUDs with occasional SUDs, and universal use of SUDs over the lifetime of one RUD. RUDs were substantially heavier (3489 g) than both SUD-A (943 g) and SUD-B (716 g). RUDs were mainly metal alloys (95%), whereas SUDs were mainly plastic polymers and resins (70%-81%). The LCA demonstrated the sustainability of RUDs, with a life cycle carbon footprint 62-82 times lower than universal use of SUDs (152 vs. 10 512-12 640 kg CO2eq) and 10 times lower than occasional use of SUDs (152 vs. 1417-1677 kg CO2eq). Differences were observed between SUD-A and SUD-B (7.9 vs. 6.6 kg CO2eq per endoscope). End-of-life incineration emissions for SUDs were the greatest environmental contributors. Widespread adoption of SUDs has greater environmental challenges; it requires a balance between infection control and environmental responsibility. Carbon footprint labelling can help healthcare institutions make sustainable choices and promote environmentally responsible healthcare practices.