Neurourology and urodynamics · 2025
What Data Do We Need to Show the Cost and Clinical Effectiveness, Bearing in Mind Sustainability, of Urological Disposables in Different Patient Groups? ICI-RS 2025.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Bou Kheir George, Rantell Angela, Hentzen Claire, Papaefstathiou Efstathios, Van den Ende Mauro, Da Silva Ana Sofia, Wyndaele Michel, Van Huele Andries, Sinha Sanjay, Abrams Paul
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Urological disposables, including catheters, stents, irrigation systems, and incontinence pads, are essential in functional urology but generate large volumes of nonbiodegradable waste. Intermittent self-catheterization is the gold standard for impaired bladder emptying, while disposable pads are a frequent first-line coping strategy for incontinence. Their widespread use presents a growing environmental challenge in healthcare.
METHODS: At the 2025 International Consultation on Incontinence-Research Society meeting, a dedicated session examined sustainability in urological disposables. Three questions were addressed: (1) how to define and measure sustainability, (2) whether sustainable alternatives are clinically effective and safe compared to conventional products, and for which patient groups, and (3) whether disposables are cost-effective when environmental and health system costs are included.
RESULTS: Sustainability assessment involves life cycle analysis, carbon and water footprint evaluation, material composition, and waste generation. Existing sustainability studies are limited, non-comparative, and methodologically inconsistent, often using variable definitions and incomplete life cycle boundaries. Reusable incontinence pads and catheters generally have a lower environmental impact than single-use designs. Clinical outcomes, including infection rates and safety, are largely comparable between reusable and single-use catheters, though user preference often favors single-use products for convenience. Economic evaluations rarely incorporate environmental impacts, but proposed methods include monetizing emissions, converting environmental effects into health outcomes, and applying multi-criteria decision-making to integrate sustainability alongside clinical and economic performance.
CONCLUSION: Advancing sustainable continence care requires standardised metrics, integration of environmental costs into economic evaluations, and patient-centered product innovation, supported by collaboration between clinicians, policymakers, and industry.
METHODS: At the 2025 International Consultation on Incontinence-Research Society meeting, a dedicated session examined sustainability in urological disposables. Three questions were addressed: (1) how to define and measure sustainability, (2) whether sustainable alternatives are clinically effective and safe compared to conventional products, and for which patient groups, and (3) whether disposables are cost-effective when environmental and health system costs are included.
RESULTS: Sustainability assessment involves life cycle analysis, carbon and water footprint evaluation, material composition, and waste generation. Existing sustainability studies are limited, non-comparative, and methodologically inconsistent, often using variable definitions and incomplete life cycle boundaries. Reusable incontinence pads and catheters generally have a lower environmental impact than single-use designs. Clinical outcomes, including infection rates and safety, are largely comparable between reusable and single-use catheters, though user preference often favors single-use products for convenience. Economic evaluations rarely incorporate environmental impacts, but proposed methods include monetizing emissions, converting environmental effects into health outcomes, and applying multi-criteria decision-making to integrate sustainability alongside clinical and economic performance.
CONCLUSION: Advancing sustainable continence care requires standardised metrics, integration of environmental costs into economic evaluations, and patient-centered product innovation, supported by collaboration between clinicians, policymakers, and industry.