Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Journal of Digestive Endoscopy 2023; 14(03): 144-148
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1775873
Research Article

Environmentally Sustainable Endoscopy Practices

Mayank Jain 
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Arihant Hospital and Research Centre, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Climate change affects each and every one of us and has far reaching consequences. As healthcare providers and responsible citizens, it is our duty to make our practices environmentally sustainable. Endoscopy practice involves frequent use of single-use items, resource-heavy decontamination practices, water consumption, patient and staff travel as well as high electricity consumption. The present review highlights the measures that can be taken to reduce the carbon footprint of endoscopy practice. Proper waste management, judicious use of electricity, proper selection of cases for anesthesia and biopsy, and appropriate use of noninvasive tests in practice are discussed in the review.

Keywords

biopsy - endoscopy - waste management


Publication History

Article published online:
09 October 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Donnelly L. Green endoscopy: practical implementation. Frontline Gastroenterol 2022; 13 (e1): e7-e12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sebastian S, Dhar A, Baddeley R. et al. Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy. Gut 2023; 72 (01) 12-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Maurice JB, Siau K, Sebastian S. et al; Green Endoscopy Network. Green endoscopy: a call for sustainability in the midst of COVID-19. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 5 (07) 636-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Siau K, Hayee B, Gayam S. Endoscopy's current carbon footprint. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 23: 344-352
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Vaccari M, Tudor T, Perteghella A. Costs associated with the management of waste from healthcare facilities: an analysis at national and site level. Waste Manag Res 2018; 36 (01) 39-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gayam S. Environmental impact of endoscopy: “Scope” of the problem. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115 (12) 1931-1932
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rodríguez de Santiago E, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Pohl H. et al. Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2022; 54 (08) 797-826
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Triadafilopoulos G, Aslan A. Same-day upper and lower inpatient endoscopy: a trend for the future. Am J Gastroenterol 1991; 86 (08) 952-955
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Jowhari F, Hookey L. Gastroscopy should come before colonoscopy using CO2 Insufflation in same day bidirectional endoscopies: a randomized controlled trial. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol 2020; 3 (03) 120-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Chen SW, Cheng CL, Liu NJ. et al. Optimal procedural sequence for same-day bidirectional endoscopy with moderate sedation: a prospective randomized study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 33 (03) 689-695
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sheffield KM, Han Y, Kuo Y-F, Riall TS, Goodwin JS. Potentially inappropriate screening colonoscopy in Medicare patients: variation by physician and geographic region. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173 (07) 542-550
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 de Jong JJ, Lantinga MA, Drenth JP. Prevention of overuse: a view on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25 (02) 178-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Badgery-Parker T, Pearson SA, Chalmers K. et al. Low-value care in Australian public hospitals: prevalence and trends over time. BMJ Qual Saf 2019; 28 (03) 205-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Shandro B, Chang V, Mathur J. et al. Real-life cost savings and capacity improvements on implementation of the new BSG post-polypectomy surveillance guideline. Clin Med (Lond) 2020; 20 (01) 116-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rutter MD, East J, Rees CJ. et al. British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines. Gut 2020; 69 (02) 201-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hassan C, Antonelli G, Dumonceau J-M. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2020. Endoscopy 2020; 52 (08) 687-700
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Spada C, Hassan C, Bellini D. et al. Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and abdominal radiology (ESGAR) guideline - update 2020. Endoscopy 2020; 52 (12) 1127-1141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 MacLeod C, Hudson J, Brogan M. ScotCap—a large observational cohort study. Colorectal Dis 2022; 24 (04) 411-421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bjørsum-Meyer T, Baatrup G, Koulaouzidis A. Colon capsule endoscopy as a diagnostic adjunct in patients with symptoms from the lower gastrointestinal tract. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021; 11 (09) 11
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Cash BD, Fleisher MR, Fern S. et al. Multicentre, prospective, randomised study comparing the diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in a screening population (the TOPAZ study). Gut 2021; 70 (11) 2115-2122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Azouz S, Boyll P, Swanson M, Castel N, Maffi T, Rebecca AM. Managing barriers to recycling in the operating room. Am J Surg 2019; 217 (04) 634-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mosquera M, Andrés-Prado MJ, Rodríguez-Caravaca G, Latasa P, Mosquera ME. Evaluation of an education and training intervention to reduce health care waste in a tertiary hospital in Spain. Am J Infect Control 2014; 42 (08) 894-897
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wong KFV, Narasimhan R, Kashyap R, Fu J. Medical waste characterization. J Environ Health 1994; 57: 19-25
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Patrawoot S, Tran T, Arunchaiya M. et al. Environmental impacts of examination gloves made of natural rubber and nitrile rubber, identified by life-cycle assessment. SPE Polym 2021; 2: 179-190
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Siddhi S, Dhar A, Sebastian S. Best practices in environmental advocacy and research in endoscopy. Techniques Innovations Gastrointest Endoscopy 2021; 23: 376-384
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Aydemir C, Ayhan Özsoy S, Ozsoy SA. Istanbul University Cerrahpasa, Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Printing and Publication Technologies Program, Istanbul, Turkey. Environmental impact of printing inks and printing process. J Graph Eng Des 2020; 11: 11-17
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Jehle K, Jarrett N, Matthews S. Clean and green: saving water in the operating theatre. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2008; 90 (01) 22-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Duane B, Pilling J, Saget S, Ashley P, Pinhas AR, Lyne A. Hand hygiene with hand sanitizer versus handwashing: what are the planetary health consequences?. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2022; 29 (32) 48736-48747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Daverey A, Dutta K. COVID-19: Eco-friendly hand hygiene for human and environmental safety. J Environ Chem Eng 2021; 9 (02) 104754
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ravindran S, Bassett P, Shaw T. et al. National census of UK endoscopy services in 2019. Frontline Gastroenterol 2020; 12 (06) 451-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Rizzo J, Bernstein D, Gress F. A performance, safety and cost comparison of reusable and disposable endoscopic biopsy forceps: a prospective, randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51 (03) 257-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Deprez PH, Horsmans Y, Van Hassel M, Hoang P, Piessevaux H, Geubel A. Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps: a prospective cost evaluation. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51 (03) 262-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Pasquale L, Maurano A, Cengia G. et al. Infection prevention in endoscopy practice: comparative evaluation of re-usable vs single-use endoscopic valves. Infect Prev Pract 2021; 3 (02) 100123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Bhatia V, Bharadwaj V, Tevathia H. Reprocessing and reuse of endoscopic accessories. J Dig Endosc 2021; 12: 214-220
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Rai P. Disinfection of endoscopy and reusability of accessories. J Dig Endosc 2022; 11 (01) 61-66
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Gordon IO, Sherman JD, Leapman M, Overcash M, Thiel CL. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of gastrointestinal biopsies in a surgical pathology laboratory. Am J Clin Pathol 2021; 156 (04) 540-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Ching H-L, Hale MF, Sidhu R, McAlindon ME. Reassessing the value of gastroscopy for the investigation of dyspepsia. Frontline Gastroenterol 2018; 9 (01) 62-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Dekker E, Houwen BBSL, Puig I. et al. Curriculum for optical diagnosis training in Europe: European Society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) position statement. Endoscopy 2020; 52 (10) C10
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Abu Dayyeh BK, Thosani N, Konda V. et al; ASGE Technology Committee. ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE PIVI thresholds for adopting real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81 (03) 502.e1-502.e16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Darak H, Giri S, Sundaram S. Review: disposable duodenoscopes in the era of climate change—a global perspective. J Gastrointest Infect 2022; 12: 11-17
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Shimpi RA, Spaete JP. Quality assurance in endoscopic infection control, disposable duodenoscopes, and the environmental impact of endoscopy. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 24: 290-299
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Dhar A, Hayee B, Wesley E, Stableforth W, Sebastian S. Reducing low risk of transmissible infection in duodenoscopes: at what cost to the planet?. Gut 2022; 71 (03) 655-656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Le NNT, Hernandez LV, Vakil N, Guda N, Patnode C, Jolliet O. Environmental and health outcomes of single-use versus reusable duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 96 (06) 1002-1008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Jain M, Agrawal V. Making endoscopy practice environmentally sustainable-Early experience from Central India. Indian J Gastroenterol 2023; DOI: 10.1007/s12664-023-01361-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar