Clinical Endoscopy

The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (대한소화기내시경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Current status and trends of green endoscopy

  • Kihyun Ryu (Department of Gastroenterology, Konyang University Myunggok Medical Research Institute) ;
  • Won Jae Yoon (Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine) ;
  • Sang Hoon Kim (Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University Gwangmyeong Hospital) ;
  • Da Hee Park (Department of Internal Medicine, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jin Hwa Park (Department of Gastroenterology, Hanyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Ki Bae Bang (Department of Internal Medicine, H Plus Yangji Hospital) ;
  • Tae Joo Jeon (Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine) ;
  • Da Hyun Jung (Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Young Sin Cho (Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital)
  • Received : 2024.12.16
  • Accepted : 2025.01.21
  • Published : 2025.07.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The increasing global emphasis on sustainability has extended its influence to the field of medicine, including endoscopy. Green endoscopy aims to minimize the environmental footprint of endoscopic practices while maintaining high standards of patient care. This review examines the current status of green endoscopy, focusing on its environmental impact, strategies for waste reduction, and adoption of sustainable practices. The key topics include the environmental challenges posed by single-use devices, the role of sterilization and recycling, and innovations in energy-efficient endoscopic equipment. Furthermore, we highlight policy recommendations and actionable strategies for healthcare systems to transition toward green practices. By integrating these approaches, the field of endoscopy can meaningfully contribute to global sustainability efforts without compromising clinical outcomes.

Keywords

References

  1. Beilenhoff U, Neumann CS, Rey JF, et al. ESGE-ESGENA guideline for quality assurance in reprocessing: microbiological surveillance testing in endoscopy. Endoscopy 2007;39:175–181. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-945181
  2. Sebastian S, Dhar A, Baddeley R, et al. Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy. Gut 2023;72:12–26.
  3. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The earth summit (1992). UNFCCC; 1992.
  4. United Nations. Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations; 1997.
  5. Lenzen M, Malik A, Li M, et al. The environmental footprint of health care: a global assessment. Lancet Planet Health 2020;4:e271–e279. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30121-2
  6. Donnelly L. Green endoscopy: practical implementation. Frontline Gastroenterol 2022;13(e1):e7–e12. https://doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2022-102116
  7. Maurice JB, Siau K, Sebastian S, et al. Green endoscopy: a call for sustainability in the midst of COVID-19. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;5:636–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30157-6
  8. Vaccari M, Tudor T, Perteghella A. Costs associated with the management of waste from healthcare facilities: an analysis at national and site level. Waste Manag Res 2018;36:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X17739968
  9. Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. 2023 Procedure data for endoscopy in South Korea. Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2023.
  10. National Health Insurance Service. 2023 National health screening statistical yearbook [Internet]. National Health Insurance Service; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 31]. Available from: https://www.nhis.or.kr/nhis/together/wbhaec07000m01.do?mode=view&articleNo=10848529&article.offset=0&articleLimit=10
  11. Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC, et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: update 2018. Gastroenterology 2019;156:254–272. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.08.063
  12. Rodríguez de Santiago E, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Pohl H, et al. Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2022;54:797–826. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1859-3726
  13. Lacroute J, Marcantoni J, Petitot S, et al. The carbon footprint of ambulatory gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2023;55:918–926. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2088-4062
  14. Naryzhny I, Silas D, Chi K. Impact of ethylene oxide gas sterilization of duodenoscopes after a carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae outbreak. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;84:259–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.01.055
  15. Kim S, Russell D, Mohamadnejad M, et al. Risk factors associated with the transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae via contaminated duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:1121–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.03.790
  16. Rex DK, Sieber M, Lehman GA, et al. A double-reprocessing high-level disinfection protocol does not eliminate positive cultures from the elevators of duodenoscopes. Endoscopy 2018;50:588–596. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-122378
  17. Ross AS, Baliga C, Verma P, et al. A quarantine process for the resolution of duodenoscope-associated transmission of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:477–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.04.036
  18. Rauwers AW, Voor In 't Holt AF, Buijs JG, et al. High prevalence rate of digestive tract bacteria in duodenoscopes: a nationwide study. Gut 2018;67:1637–1645. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315082
  19. Loeve AJ. Investigational report on a TJF-Q180V duodenoscope following contamination after cleaning and disinfection. Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate/National Institute for Public Health and the Environment; 2012.
  20. Reprocessing Guideline Task Force, Petersen BT, Cohen J, et al. Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes: 2016 update. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:282–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.10.002
  21. Verfaillie CJ, Bruno MJ, Voor in 't Holt AF, et al. Withdrawal of a novel-design duodenoscope ends outbreak of a VIM-2-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Endoscopy 2015;47:493–502. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1391886
  22. Larsen S, Russell RV, Ockert LK, et al. Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine 2020;25:100451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100451
  23. Le NN, Hernandez LV, Vakil N, et al. Environmental and health outcomes of single-use versus reusable duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;96:1002–1008.
  24. Pasricha PJ, Miller S, Carter F, et al. Novel and effective disposable device that provides 2-way protection to the duodenoscope from microbial contamination. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;92:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.001
  25. Ridtitid W, Pakvisal P, Chatsuwan T, et al. A newly designed duodenoscope with detachable distal cap significantly reduces organic residue contamination after reprocessing. Endoscopy 2020;52:754–760. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1145-3562
  26. United Nations. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations; 2015. p. 41.
  27. World Health Organization (WHO). Who global strategy on health, environment, and climate change. WHO; 2020.
  28. World Health Organization (WHO). The who health and climate change global survey. WHO; 2021.
  29. Jeon TJ, Cha JM. Awareness of green endoscopy is low among healthcare professionals performing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Clin Endosc 2024;57:836–838. https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.004
  30. Ho JC, Lui RN, Ho SH, et al. Asia-Pacific survey on green endoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024;39:133–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16409
  31. Klose MA, Becker A, Blank V, et al. Role of patient and staff mobility in scope 3 emissions in GI endoscopy. Gut 2024;73:1232–1234. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2024-332041
  32. McGain F, Muret J, Lawson C, et al. Environmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care. Br J Anaesth 2020;125:680–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2020.06.055
  33. Muscarella LF. Risk of transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and related "superbugs" during gastrointestinal endoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014;6:457–474. https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v6.i10.457
  34. Epstein L, Hunter JC, Arwady MA, et al. New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli associated with exposure to duodenoscopes. JAMA 2014;312:1447–1455. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.12720
  35. Pioche M, Pohl H, Cunha Neves JA, et al. Environmental impact of single-use versus reusable gastroscopes. Gut 2024;73:1816–1822. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2024-332293
  36. Pohl H. Single-use duodenoscopes: how concerned should we be about the environment? Gastrointest Endosc 2022;96:1009–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2022.08.014
  37. Vozzola E, Overcash M, Griffing E. Environmental considerations in the selection of isolation gowns: a life cycle assessment of reusable and disposable alternatives. Am J Infect Control 2018;46:881–886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.02.002
  38. Baddeley R, Aabakken L, Veitch A, et al. Green endoscopy: counting the carbon cost of our practice. Gastroenterology 2022;162:1556–1560. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2022.01.057
  39. Loyola M, Babb E, Bocian S, et al. Standards of infection prevention in reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Gastroenterol Nurs 2020;43:E142–E158. https://doi.org/10.1097/SGA.0000000000000536
  40. Garrett JH Jr, Winfrey C. Reprocessing of flexible endoscopes: scientific rationales and patient safety implications. Tech Gastrointest Endosc 2019;21:150628.
  41. Krouss M, Israilov S, Alaiev D, et al. SEE the DIFFerence: reducing unnecessary C. difficile orders through clinical decision support in a large, urban safety-net system. Am J Infect Control 2023;51:786–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2022.11.003
  42. Park SB, Cha JM. Gastrointestinal endoscopy's carbon footprint. Clin Endosc 2023;56:263–267. https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2023.003
  43. Negrete-Bolagay D, Guerrero VH. Opportunities and challenges in the application of bioplastics: perspectives from formulation, processing, and performance. Polymers (Basel) 2024;16:2561. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16182561
  44. Ambu A/S. Annual report 2023/24 [Internet]. Ambu A/S; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 12]. Available from: https://www.ambu.com/corporate-info/investors/reports/reports-in-english
  45. Boston Scientific Corporation. 2023 Performance report: advancing science for life [Internet]. Boston Scientific Corporation; 2023 [cited 2024 Dec 12]. Available from: https://www.bostonscientific.com/enUS/corporate-responsibility.html
  46. Olympus Corporation. Sustainability report 2023 [Internet]. Olympus Corporation; 2023 [cited 2025 Mar 31]. Available from: https://www.olympus-global.com/csr/download
  47. Pentax Medical. Carbon reduction plan 2023 [Internet]. UK: Pentax Medical; 2023 [cited 2025 Mar 31]. Available from: https://www.pentaxmedical.com/apac-en/about-us/sustainability-esg