Surgical endoscopy · 2026
Environmental and economic impact of validated endoscope storage systems: a life cycle assessment and scenario analysis of avoided morning reprocessing.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Carret Magali, Grimaldi Jean, Marcellier Gabriel, Rodriguez de Santiago Enrique, Laporte Arthur, Pohl Heiko, Halvorsen Natalie, Jacques Jérémie, Moreau Charlotte, Djinbachian Roupen, Saurin Jean-Christophe, Lupu Alexandru, Rostain Florian, Rivory Jérôme, Pioche Mathieu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Validated storage systems allow prolonged microbiologically safe storage of thermosensitive endoscopes and may avoid repeated morning reprocessing in countries where an additional disinfection cycle is required before first use. We performed a life cycle assessment (LCA) comparing validated endoscope storage systems and modeled the environmental and economic consequences of avoiding repeated morning reprocessing.
METHODS: An ISO 14040/44-compliant LCA compared three validated storage technologies: two drying and storage cabinets (steris endodry and wassenburg dry 300D) and plasma typhoon (PT) with PlasmaBag storage. Storage impacts were evaluated from 24 h to 7 days. To assess the consequences of avoiding morning reprocessing, storage results were integrated into a scenario analysis using the carbon footprint of one additional reprocessing cycle derived from a previously published ISO-compliant LCA. Economic analysis included equipment acquisition, consumables, and avoided reprocessing costs. Outcomes were modeled for a representative European endoscopy unit performing 8000 procedures annually.
RESULTS: The 24-h storage carbon footprint was 0.93 kg CO2-eq per endoscope for both cabinet systems and 0.27 kg CO2-eq for PT. Where morning reprocessing is routinely performed, validated storage reduced modeled annual greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 7.2 t CO2-eq with storage cabinets and 12.5 t CO2-eq with PT for 8000 annual procedures. Storage cabinets had lower annual costs than PT because of lower consumable use, although all strategies remained associated with additional direct expenditures despite partial compensation from avoided morning reprocessing.
CONCLUSIONS: Where repeated morning reprocessing is routinely required, validated storage systems may substantially reduce the environmental burden of endoscope reprocessing. Their economic impact depends largely on consumable utilization and organizational practice, supporting joint environmental and financial assessment when implementing storage strategies. These findings derive from a scenario analysis reflecting practice in several European countries and may not be generalizable to healthcare systems where additional morning reprocessing is not routinely performed.
METHODS: An ISO 14040/44-compliant LCA compared three validated storage technologies: two drying and storage cabinets (steris endodry and wassenburg dry 300D) and plasma typhoon (PT) with PlasmaBag storage. Storage impacts were evaluated from 24 h to 7 days. To assess the consequences of avoiding morning reprocessing, storage results were integrated into a scenario analysis using the carbon footprint of one additional reprocessing cycle derived from a previously published ISO-compliant LCA. Economic analysis included equipment acquisition, consumables, and avoided reprocessing costs. Outcomes were modeled for a representative European endoscopy unit performing 8000 procedures annually.
RESULTS: The 24-h storage carbon footprint was 0.93 kg CO2-eq per endoscope for both cabinet systems and 0.27 kg CO2-eq for PT. Where morning reprocessing is routinely performed, validated storage reduced modeled annual greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 7.2 t CO2-eq with storage cabinets and 12.5 t CO2-eq with PT for 8000 annual procedures. Storage cabinets had lower annual costs than PT because of lower consumable use, although all strategies remained associated with additional direct expenditures despite partial compensation from avoided morning reprocessing.
CONCLUSIONS: Where repeated morning reprocessing is routinely required, validated storage systems may substantially reduce the environmental burden of endoscope reprocessing. Their economic impact depends largely on consumable utilization and organizational practice, supporting joint environmental and financial assessment when implementing storage strategies. These findings derive from a scenario analysis reflecting practice in several European countries and may not be generalizable to healthcare systems where additional morning reprocessing is not routinely performed.