The Carbon Footprint of Single-Use Flexible Cystoscopes Compared with Reusable Cystoscopes

Introduction: Single-use devices for endourologic procedures are becoming more popular. The environmental impact of single-use instruments is relatively unknown. This study aimed to compare the carbon footprint of single-use vs reusable flexible cystoscopes based on waste production and estimated carbon emissions. Methods: An analysis of the solid waste produced when using the aScope™ 4 Cysto (Ambu ® ) single-use flexible cystoscope compared with the reusable Cysto-Nephro Videoscope CYF-VA2 (Olympus ® ) was performed. The solid waste generated was measured (grams) and recorded as either recyclable, landfill, or contaminated, and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) produced by disposal, manufacture, and cleaning was calculated. Results: A total of 40 flexible cystoscopies (20 single-use and 20 reusable) were analyzed. Median total weight of waste produced was 622 g (interquartile range [IQR] 621–651) for the single-use cystoscope compared with 671.5 g (IQR 659–677.5) for the reusable cystoscope ( p < 0.0001). More waste was disposed of by incineration after single-use than reusable cystoscopy (496 g [IQR 495–525] vs 415 g [IQR 403–421.5], p < 0.0001). However, more waste went to landfill after reusable cystoscopy (256 g ± 0 vs 126 g ± 0, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in weight of waste produced based on the indication for cystoscopy ( p = 0.1570). A total of 2.41 kg of CO 2 (IQR 2.40–2.44) was produced per case for the single-use flexible cystoscope compared with 4.23 kg of CO 2 (IQR 4.22–4.24) for the reusable cystoscope ( p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Environmental accountability is essential in modern health care. This study highlights that disposable flexible cystoscopes have a significantly lower impact on the environment in terms of carbon footprint and landfill. We propose that environmental impact studies should be a routine part of device development for a sustainable future.