Making minimally invasive procedures more sustainable: A systematic review comparing the environmental footprint of...

Healthcare systems contribute 5%-10% of the global carbon footprint. Given the detrimental impact of climate change on population health, health systems must seek to address this environmental responsibility. This is especially relevant in the modern era of minimally invasive procedures (MIP) where single-use instruments are increasingly popular. We compared the environmental footprint of single-use versus multi-use instruments in MIP.

We conducted a systematic review across five databases to identify relevant original studies, following the PRISMA guidelines. We extracted environmental impact data and performed a quality assessment of included studies.

We included 13 studies published between 2005 and 2024. Eight employed Life Cycle Analysis (LCAs), which is the gold standard methodology for studies evaluating environmental impact. The instruments studied included laparoscopy systems, endoscopes, cystoscopes, bronchoscopes, duodenoscopes, and ureteroscopes. Six studies, including three high quality LCAs and one fair quality LCA, showed that single-use instruments have a significantly higher environmental footprint than their multi-use counterparts. Six studies suggested a lower environmental footprint for single-use instruments, and one study presented comparable results. However, these studies were of poor/fair quality.

Although our systematic review yielded mixed results, all high quality LCAs suggested multi-use instruments may be more environmentally friendly than their single-use counterparts. Our findings are limited by inter-study heterogeneity and methodological quality. There is an urgent need for additional research employing gold standard methodologies to explore the interplay between environmental impact and operational factors such as workflow efficiency and cost-benefit ratio to allow health systems to make more informed decisions.