» Articles » PMID: 39498946

Uncovering the Evidence for Sustainability in Urology: A Scoping Review

Overview
Journal Urol Res Pract
Specialty Urology
Date 2024 Nov 5
PMID 39498946
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: This article focuses on the environmental impact of urology devices and procedures in hospitals and identifies practices that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with urology services.

Materials And Methods: A scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar to find studies on the carbon footprint of urologic procedures and sustainable practices.

Results: We identified 14 studies, 6 of which used life cycle assessments to compare the environmental impact of single-use and reusable urology devices. Three studies favored single-use devices, 2 favored reusable ones, and 1 found no significant difference, with the sterilization of reusable devices being a major carbon contributor. To enhance sustainability in urology, 8 articles suggested measures including day-case procedures, minimizing low-value care, drapeless cystoscopy, fluid management systems, using quick response (QR) codes in documentation, telehealth initiatives, and low-emission anesthetics.

Conclusion: Promoting sustainability in healthcare requires more than just using reusable equipment; it necessitates a comprehensive approach from manufacturing to disposal, including the carbon footprint of sterilization. Encouraging low-emission anesthetics, QR codes, and telemedicine can significantly reduce emissions in urology.

Citing Articles

Carbon footprints in the urologic field: From diagnosis to surgery.

Lee J, Song M, Kim J Investig Clin Urol. 2025; 66(2):106-113.

PMID: 40047123 PMC: 11885924. DOI: 10.4111/icu.20250004.

References
1.
Kemble J, Winoker J, Patel S, Su Z, Matlaga B, Potretzke A . Environmental impact of single-use and reusable flexible cystoscopes. BJU Int. 2022; 131(5):617-622. DOI: 10.1111/bju.15949. View

2.
Boucheron T, Lechevallier E, Gondran-Tellier B, Michel F, Bastide C, Martin N . Cost and Environmental Impact of Disposable Flexible Cystoscopes Compared to Reusable Devices. J Endourol. 2022; 36(10):1317-1321. DOI: 10.1089/end.2022.0201. View

3.
Edison M, Connor M, Miah S, El-Husseiny T, Winkler M, Dasgupta R . Understanding virtual urology clinics: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2020; 126(5):536-546. DOI: 10.1111/bju.15125. View

4.
Phull M, Begum H, John J, van Hove M, McGrath J, OFlynn K . Potential Carbon Savings with Day-case Compared to Inpatient Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumour Surgery in England: A Retrospective Observational Study Using Administrative Data. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023; 52:44-50. PMC: 10240513. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.03.007. View

5.
Pandit K, Yodkhunnatham N, Bagrodia A, Monga M . Sustainability in Urology: Ideas for a Greener Future. Eur Urol Focus. 2023; 9(6):894-896. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.09.006. View