BJU international · 2026
Comparative 30-day life cycle assessment of bladder drainage strategies.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Peyrottes Arthur, Long-Depaquit Thibaut, Fourmarier Marc, Pradere Benjamin, Peyronnet Benoit, Zieleskiewicz Laurent, Uleri Alessandro, Cornu Jean-Nicolas, Misrai Vincent, Mallet Richard, Baboudjian Michael, French Sustainability Task Force from the Association Française d'Urologie
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To identify the most environmentally sustainable urinary drainage strategies commonly used to manage bladder outlet obstruction and also to highlight actionable levers for reducing the footprint of urinary drainage in clinical practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a comparative life cycle assessment of three urinary drainage strategies (i.e., indwelling urinary catheter, clean intermittent self-catheterisation [CISC], and temporary urethral stent) over a 30-day period, in accordance with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040 and ISO 14044 standards. Primary data were collected via device disassembly and manufacturer consultation, with secondary data from the Ecoinvent version 3.9 database (Ecoinvent, Zurich, Switzerland). Impacts were modelled using the Environmental Footprint 3.0 method across 13 categories. Sensitivity analyses tested care delivery parameters and reusable catheters for CISC.
RESULTS: The mean climate change impact over 30 days was 96.5 kg CO2 equivalents (CO2-eq; 95% confidence interval [CI] 58.8-162) for indwelling catheterisation, 39.8 kg CO2-eq (95% CI 31.2-53.3) for disposable CISC catheters, and 16.1 kg CO2-eq (95% CI 8.4-29.2) for the stent. Indwelling catheterisation consistently showed the highest impact, CISC intermediate, and the stent the lowest. Relative to catheterisation, the stent reduced climate impact by 83%, fossil resource use by 83%, and water consumption by 92%. Reusable CISC catheters showed a comparable profile to the stent. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that home nurse travel, device replacement frequency, and patient autonomy substantially influenced overall impact. Limitations include the mono-country design.
CONCLUSIONS: Device choice and care delivery models critically affect the environmental footprint of urinary drainage strategies. This study provides further strong arguments for promoting existing alternatives to the indwelling urinary catheter.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a comparative life cycle assessment of three urinary drainage strategies (i.e., indwelling urinary catheter, clean intermittent self-catheterisation [CISC], and temporary urethral stent) over a 30-day period, in accordance with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040 and ISO 14044 standards. Primary data were collected via device disassembly and manufacturer consultation, with secondary data from the Ecoinvent version 3.9 database (Ecoinvent, Zurich, Switzerland). Impacts were modelled using the Environmental Footprint 3.0 method across 13 categories. Sensitivity analyses tested care delivery parameters and reusable catheters for CISC.
RESULTS: The mean climate change impact over 30 days was 96.5 kg CO2 equivalents (CO2-eq; 95% confidence interval [CI] 58.8-162) for indwelling catheterisation, 39.8 kg CO2-eq (95% CI 31.2-53.3) for disposable CISC catheters, and 16.1 kg CO2-eq (95% CI 8.4-29.2) for the stent. Indwelling catheterisation consistently showed the highest impact, CISC intermediate, and the stent the lowest. Relative to catheterisation, the stent reduced climate impact by 83%, fossil resource use by 83%, and water consumption by 92%. Reusable CISC catheters showed a comparable profile to the stent. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that home nurse travel, device replacement frequency, and patient autonomy substantially influenced overall impact. Limitations include the mono-country design.
CONCLUSIONS: Device choice and care delivery models critically affect the environmental footprint of urinary drainage strategies. This study provides further strong arguments for promoting existing alternatives to the indwelling urinary catheter.