Carbon footprint assessment of commonly used cold snares using two different approaches

Aims Cold snare resection has become the standard method for removing≤10 mm colorectal polyps. Different dedicated cold snares are available. Assuming similar efficacy, knowing the carbon footprint of snares may inform choice of snare. However, approaches to carbon footprint assessment may vary, which limits ability to compare obtained results. Our goals were to 1) examine and compare the carbon footprint of cold polypectomy snares, and 2) compare two different approaches in measuring the carbon footprint.

Methods We analyzed the carbon footprint of 4 commonly used cold snares applying life cycle assessment (LCA) following ISO 14040 standards: Cold Polypectomy snare (mdd company-GmbH), Snare Master Plus (Olympus), Captivator (Boston Scientific), and ExactoÒ (Steris). We considered production, assembly, transport, and disposal of the snares (cradle-to-grave) to be used in a representative European practice. Material composition was determined and confirmed by three different engineering methods. LCA was performed using two different approaches: the publicly available data platform OpenLCA (2.3.1), and the professional SimaPro software (9.3.0.3.). While selection of input variables was performed independently by two groups (e.g. selection of material variable and manufacturing process in each data platform), the same impact methodology (Recipe midpoint H) was applied. Our main metric of interest was the carbon footprint (KgCO₂e) of cold snares (mean and range). We further examined absolute and relative differences (RD) between snares, and RD between the two LCA approaches.

Results The mean carbon footprint of a cold snare was 0.441 KgCO₂e using OpenLCA and 0.441 KgCO₂e using SimaPro. Emissions ranged from 0.318 to 0.612 KgCO₂e using OpenLCA (RD 1.89), and 0.324 to 0.606 KgCO₂e (RD 1.87) using SimaPro. Within the life cycle of a snare, material manufacturing was the major source of emissions (56.5% vs 57.1% for OpenLCA and SimaPro, respectively), followed by disposal (27.5% vs 27.9%), assembly (13.6% vs 12.4%), while transport (assumed sea fright) made up 2.4% and 2.6%, respectively. Differences between the carbon footprint for individual snares varied only minimally using the two approaches with RD ranging between 0% and 2.8%.

Conclusions This first formal assessment of the carbon footprint of commonly used cold snares showed a broad variation by snare type. The carbon footprint of the snare with the highest emissions was almost double to the snare with the lowest emission. There were negligible differences between a publicly available approach and professional LCA approaches supporting the validity of the findings. The results may assist endoscopists in making equipment choices to minimize carbon footprint of GI endoscopy.

Publication History

Article published online:
27 March 2025