PDF herunterladen
CC BY 4.0 · Journal of Digestive Endoscopy 2024; 15(03): 184-191
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1790203
Review Article

Green Endoscopy and Sustainable Practices: A Scoping Review

Thai Hau Koo 
1   Gastrointestinal Function and Motility Unit, Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia
2   School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia
,
Vincent Tee 
1   Gastrointestinal Function and Motility Unit, Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia
2   School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia
3   Department of Medicine, Hospital Segamat, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia
,
Yeong Yeh Lee 
1   Gastrointestinal Function and Motility Unit, Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia
2   School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia
,
Nur Sakinah Roslan
4   Faculty of Science and Marine Environment, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia
,
Yusof Shuaib Ibrahim
4   Faculty of Science and Marine Environment, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia
5   Microplastic Research Interest Group, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia
› Institutsangaben Funding A grant partially funded this work (Reference: FRGS/1/2021/WAB02/UMT/02/1) under the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Malaysia.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

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.

Keywords

green endoscopy - sustainable practices - environmental impact - gastroenterology

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.




Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Boini A, Acciuffi S, Croner R. et al. Scoping review: autonomous endoscopic navigation. Artif Intell Surg 2023; 3 (04) 233-248
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Cunha MF, Pellino G. Environmental effects of surgical procedures and strategies for sustainable surgery. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 20 (06) 399-410
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Ilias TI, Hocopan CS, Brata R. et al. Current and future sustainability traits of digestive endoscopy. Sustainability 2023; 15: 15872
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Siddhi S, Dhar A, Sebastian S. Best practices in environmental advocacy and research in endoscopy. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 23: 376-384
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Ibrahim YS, Tuan Anuar S, Azmi AA. et al. Detection of microplastics in human colectomy specimens. JGH Open 2020; 5 (01) 116-121
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Homyer K, Mehendale FV. Time to rethink medical disinfection from a planetary health perspective. J Glob Health Rep 2023; 7: e2023063
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Kumar S. A quest for sustainium (sustainability Premium): review of sustainable bonds. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal 2022; 26: 1-18
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Koo K, Wymer KM, Potretzke AM. Reuse and reprocessing of endoscopic instruments: for. Eur Urol Focus 2023; 9 (06) 857-858
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Nishizawa T, Suzuki H. Propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. United European Gastroenterol J 2018; 6 (06) 801-805
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Wang R, Huang X, Wang Y, Akbari M. Non-pharmacologic approaches in preoperative anxiety, a comprehensive review. Front Public Health 2022; 10: 854673
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Varughese S, Ahmed R. Environmental and occupational considerations of anesthesia: a narrative review and update. Anesth Analg 2021; 133 (04) 826-835
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Thornton M. “Disposal is Not Free: Fiscal Instruments to Internalize the Environmental Costs of Solid Waste”. IMF Working Papers 2019; 283 (2019): A001
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Ali H, Chen T, Hao Y. Sustainable manufacturing practices, competitive capabilities, and sustainable performance: moderating role of environmental regulations. Sustainability 2021; 13: 10051
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar