Minerva urology and nephrology · 2026
Environmental sustainability in urolithiasis care: a scoping review.
Scoping ReviewСтатьяНазвание 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.
Ibrahim Muhidin H, Tozsin Atinc, Yuan Yuhong, Akdere Hakan, Fiori Cristian, Ahmed Kamran, Guven Selcuk
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Urolithiasis is climate-sensitive and increasingly prevalent, but the environmental impact of its care remains poorly defined. The aim of the study is to map existing evidence on the environmental footprint of urolithiasis care and identify gaps for future research.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to March 20th, 2025. Studies were eligible if they provided quantitative estimates of the environmental footprint using life cycle assessment or clinical audit methodologies. Two reviewers screened and extracted data independently.
RESULTS: Six studies were included. Endoscopic analyses reported comparable footprints for single-use and reusable ureteroscopes, with emissions primarily from manufacturing in disposables and from sterilization in reusables. Imaging studies showed substantial variation across modalities, with ultrasound lowest, CT intermediate, and MRI highest. Surgical audits indicated that reusable drapes and gowns reduced emissions by nearly one-fifth, while cystoscopy drapes and irrigation fluid disposal represented additional hotspots.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the environmental impact of stone disease care is limited and fragmented. No studies addressed Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, or laser interventions. Patient-centered outcomes and system-level strategies remain underexplored. Standardized, multicenter life cycle assessments and evaluation of decarbonization strategies (including anesthetic choice, energy-efficient operating theatres, and pathway redesign) are priorities for guiding climate-smart stone care.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to March 20th, 2025. Studies were eligible if they provided quantitative estimates of the environmental footprint using life cycle assessment or clinical audit methodologies. Two reviewers screened and extracted data independently.
RESULTS: Six studies were included. Endoscopic analyses reported comparable footprints for single-use and reusable ureteroscopes, with emissions primarily from manufacturing in disposables and from sterilization in reusables. Imaging studies showed substantial variation across modalities, with ultrasound lowest, CT intermediate, and MRI highest. Surgical audits indicated that reusable drapes and gowns reduced emissions by nearly one-fifth, while cystoscopy drapes and irrigation fluid disposal represented additional hotspots.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the environmental impact of stone disease care is limited and fragmented. No studies addressed Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, or laser interventions. Patient-centered outcomes and system-level strategies remain underexplored. Standardized, multicenter life cycle assessments and evaluation of decarbonization strategies (including anesthetic choice, energy-efficient operating theatres, and pathway redesign) are priorities for guiding climate-smart stone care.