Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1790203
Green Endoscopy and Sustainable Practices: A Scoping Review
Funding A grant partially funded this work (Reference: FRGS/1/2021/WAB02/UMT/02/1) under the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Malaysia.Abstract
Objectives The emergence of “green endoscopy” arises from the increasing global need to reform environmental sustainability due to climate change. Our review aimed to provide current evidence surrounding green endoscopy on sustainable issues including environmental impact, innovations, guidelines, policies, future directions, and recommendations.
Materials and Methods A scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis extension for scoping reviews guidelines. Full-text English articles from established databases were screened for eligibility criteria and analyzed.
Results Out of 7,892 identified articles, 28 met all the eligibility criteria. Key findings include (1) the significant environmental impact of single-use items in current endoscopic practices; (2) there are emerging green innovations in endoscopy, such as reusable instruments, eco-friendly sterilization methods, and energy-efficient technologies; (3) guidelines and green policies are increasingly available to provide clinical guidance and framework for health care facilities; (4) model institutions can provide case studies and examples of implementing green endoscopy; and (5) unified efforts from all stakeholders are needed to address challenges, including cost-effectiveness.
Conclusion A paradigm shift toward green endoscopy is clearly in place and should be driven by the need to reduce environmental impact, be cost-effective, and not sacrifice patient safety.
Details of Earlier Presentation
None.
Authors' Contributions
Conceptualization, T.H.K. and Y.Y.L.; methodology, T.H.K. and V.T.; validation, T.H.K., Y.Y.L., and V.T.; formal analysis, T.H.K.; investigation, T.H.K., N.S.R., and Y.S.I.; resources, T.H.K., N.S.R., and Y.S.I.; data curation, T.H.K. and V.T.; writing—original draft preparation, T.H.K.; writing—review and editing, T.H.K., Y.Y.L., V.T., N.S.R., and Y.S.I.; visualization, T.H.K.; supervision, Y.Y.L.; project administration, T.H.K.. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Publication History
Article published online:
27 September 2024
© 2024. 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 Marlicz W, Ren X, Robertson A. et al. Frontiers of robotic gastroscopy: a comprehensive review of robotic gastroscopes and technologies. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12 (10) 2775
- 2 Boini A, Acciuffi S, Croner R. et al. Scoping review: autonomous endoscopic navigation. Artif Intell Surg 2023; 3 (04) 233-248
- 3 Ueda T, Li JW, Ho SH, Singh R, Uedo N. Precision endoscopy in the era of climate change and sustainability. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024; 39 (01) 18-27
- 4 Lim S, Haboubi HN, Anderson SHC. et al. Transnasal endoscopy: moving from endoscopy to the clinical outpatient-blue sky thinking in oesophageal testing. Frontline Gastroenterol 2022; 13 (e1): e65-e71
- 5 Ray L, Pattnaik R, Singh PK. et al. Environmental impact assessment of wastewater based biorefinery for the recovery of energy and valuable bio-based chemicals in a circular bioeconomy. In: Waste Biorefinery. Elsevier; 2021: 67-101
- 6 Cunha MF, Pellino G. Environmental effects of surgical procedures and strategies for sustainable surgery. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 20 (06) 399-410
- 7 Ilias TI, Hocopan CS, Brata R. et al. Current and future sustainability traits of digestive endoscopy. Sustainability 2023; 15: 15872
- 8 Javed H, Olanrewaju OA, Ansah Owusu F. et al. Challenges and solutions in postoperative complications: a narrative review in general surgery. Cureus 2023; 15 (12) e50942
- 9 Siddhi S, Dhar A, Sebastian S. Best practices in environmental advocacy and research in endoscopy. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 23: 376-384
- 10 Namburar S, von Renteln D, Damianos J. et al. Estimating the environmental impact of disposable endoscopic equipment and endoscopes. Gut 2022; 71 (07) 1326-1331
- 11 Ibrahim YS, Tuan Anuar S, Azmi AA. et al. Detection of microplastics in human colectomy specimens. JGH Open 2020; 5 (01) 116-121
- 12 Homyer K, Mehendale FV. Time to rethink medical disinfection from a planetary health perspective. J Glob Health Rep 2023; 7: e2023063
- 13 Miley D, Machado LB, Condo C. et al. Video capsule endoscopy and ingestible electronics: emerging trends in sensors, circuits, materials, telemetry, optics, and rapid reading software. Advanced Devices & Instrumentation 2021; 2021: 9854040
- 14 Ribeiro T, Morais R, Monteiro C. et al. Estimating the environmental impact of endoscopic activity at a tertiary center: a pilot study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024; 36 (01) 39-44
- 15 Leddin D, Omary MB, Veitch A. et al. Uniting the global gastroenterology community to meet the challenge of climate change and non-recyclable waste. Gut 2021; 70 (11) 2025-2029
- 16 Kumar S. A quest for sustainium (sustainability Premium): review of sustainable bonds. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal 2022; 26: 1-18
- 17 Koo K, Wymer KM, Potretzke AM. Reuse and reprocessing of endoscopic instruments: for. Eur Urol Focus 2023; 9 (06) 857-858
- 18 Delgado AAA, de Moura DTH, Ribeiro IB. et al. Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 11 (12) 573-588
- 19 Nishizawa T, Suzuki H. Propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. United European Gastroenterol J 2018; 6 (06) 801-805
- 20 Wang R, Huang X, Wang Y, Akbari M. Non-pharmacologic approaches in preoperative anxiety, a comprehensive review. Front Public Health 2022; 10: 854673
- 21 Shah AC, Przybysz AJ, Wang K. et al. Knowledge gaps in anesthetic gas utilization in a large academic hospital system: a multicenter survey. Cureus 2023; 15 (03) e35868
- 22 Varughese S, Ahmed R. Environmental and occupational considerations of anesthesia: a narrative review and update. Anesth Analg 2021; 133 (04) 826-835
- 23 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
- 24 Carbon Neutral by 2020: BMC's Ambitious Energy Plan. Boston Medical Center. Accessed February 15, 2024 at: https://development.bmc.org/why-give/stories/carbon-neutral-by-2020-bmcs-ambitious-energy-plan/
- 25 Case Study: The Ohio State Wexner Medical Center Barrier Mapping. Healthcare Plastics Recycling Council. Accessed February 16, 2024 at: https://www.hprc.org/hospital-barrier-mapping-case-study/
- 26 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
- 27 Thornton M. “Disposal is Not Free: Fiscal Instruments to Internalize the Environmental Costs of Solid Waste”. IMF Working Papers 2019; 283 (2019): A001
- 28 Ali H, Chen T, Hao Y. Sustainable manufacturing practices, competitive capabilities, and sustainable performance: moderating role of environmental regulations. Sustainability 2021; 13: 10051