The environmental impact of small-bowel capsule endoscopy

Abstract

Introduction The environmental impact of endoscopy, including small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), is a topic of growing attention and concern. This study aimed to evaluate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (kgCO₂) generated by an SBCE procedure.

Methods Life cycle assessment methodology (ISO 14040) was used to evaluate three brands of SBCE device and included emissions generated by patient travel, bowel preparation, capsule examination, and video recording. A survey of 87 physicians and 120 patients was conducted to obtain data on travel, activities undertaken during the procedure, and awareness of environmental impacts.

Results The capsule itself (4 g) accounted for < 6 % of the total product weight. Packaging (43–119 g) accounted for 9 %–97 % of total weight, and included deactivation magnets (5 g [4 %–6 %]) and paper instructions (11–50 g [up to 40 %]). A full SBCE procedure generated approximately 20 kgCO₂, with 0.04 kgCO₂ (0.2 %) attributable to the capsule itself and 18 kgCO₂ (94.7 %) generated by patient travel. Capsule retrieval using a dedicated device would add 0.98 kgCO₂ to the carbon footprint. Capsule deconstruction revealed materials (e. g. neodymium) that are prohibited from environmental disposal; 76 % of patients were not aware of the illegal nature of capsule disposal via wastewater, and 63 % would have been willing to retrieve it. The carbon impact of data storage and capsule reading was negligible.

Conclusion The carbon footprint of SBCE is mainly determined by patient travel. The capsule device itself has a relatively low carbon footprint. Given that disposal of capsule components via wastewater is illegal, retrieval of the capsule is necessary but would likely be associated with an increase in device-related emissions.

Publication History

Received: 14 November 2023

Accepted after revision: 24 April 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
24 April 2024

Article published online:
18 June 2024

• References

• 1 Pioche M, Lambin T, Rivory J. Let’s urgently engage ourselves in “greening” endoscopy to address ecological issues!. Endosc Int Open 2021; 9: E1752-E1753
• 2 Leddin D, Omary MB, Veitch A. et al. Uniting the global gastroenterology community to meet the challenge of climate change and non-recyclable waste. Gastroenterology 2021; 161: 1354-1360
• 3 Siau K, Hayee B, Gayam S. Endoscopy’s current carbon footprint. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 23: 344-352
• 4 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
• 5 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
• 6 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
• 7 Lacroute J, Marcantoni J, Petitot S. et al. The carbon footprint of ambulatory gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 918-926
• 8 Yzet C, Figueiredo M, Michoud C. et al. Ecological impact of endoscopic dilatation using the bougie cap device: a low-tech innovation to reduce waste by 99. Endoscopy 2022; 54: E824-E825
• 9 Namburar S, von Renteln D, Damianos J. et al. Estimating the environmental impact of disposable endoscopic equipment and endoscopes. Gut 2022; 71: 1326-1331
• 10 Dray X, Buzzi J, Quentin V. et al. Small bowel capsule endoscopy and deep enteroscopy procedure load in France: a nationwide population-based study over 7 years. Endosc Int Open 2023; 11: E1013-E1019
• 11 Ashby M. Materials and the Environment: Eco-informed Material Choice. 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier; 2012
• 12 Ashby M. The energy-fingerprints of products. Cambridge: Granta Design Ltd; 2012
• 13 Ashby M, Miller A, Rutter F. et al. CES EduPack for Eco Design – A White Paper. Cambridge: Granta Design Ltd; 2012
• 14 Sharma A, Minh Duc NT, Luu Lam Thang T. et al. A consensus-based checklist for reporting of survey studies (CROSS). J Gen Intern Med 2021; 36: 3179-3187
• 15 Ditac G, Cottinet P-J, Quyen LeM. et al. Carbon footprint of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation. EP Europace 2023; 25: 331-340
• 16 Grinberg D, Buzzi R, Pozzi M. et al. Eco-audit of conventional heart surgery procedures. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2021; 60: 1325-1331
• 17 Materials Database Highlighted Workshop. ASM International Medical Materials Database highlighted at FDA Biodegradable Metals Workshop. 2012 Available from (Accessed 9 May 2024): https://www.todaysmedicaldevelopments.com/news/asm-materials-database-031612/
• 18 Accueil | Impact CO₂ . Available from (Accessed 9 May 2024): https://impactco2.fr
• 19 Charret G, Arnaud A, Berthoud F. et al. Estimation de l’empreinte carbone du stockage de données. French National Center for Scientific Research [CNRS] –GRICAD. 2020 Available from (Accessed 9 May 2024): https://cnrs.hal.science/hal-03573790
• 20 Jin H, Afiuny P, McIntyre T. et al. Comparative life cycle assessment of NDFEB magnets: virgin production versus magnet-to-magnet recycling. Procedia CIRP 2016; 48: 45-50
• 21 Hillman K, Damgaard A, Eriksson O. et al. Climate benefits of material recycling : inventory of average greenhouse gas emissions for Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Copenhagen: Nordisk Ministerråd; 2015
• 22 Deubzer O. Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment. Goodship V, Stevels A, Huisman J. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. 2nd edn. Woodhead Publishing; 2019: 207-230
• 23 Parisi I, Badat S, El-Husseiny MH. et al. P149 Evaluation of the at-home capsule endoscopy (ACE) service at UCLH: preliminary findings. Gut 2022; 71: A113-A113
• 24 EUR-Lex: EU Law and Publications. Disposal of spent batteries. Available from (Accessed 9 May 2024): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/FR/legal-content/summary/disposal-of-spent-batteries.html
• 25 Enns C, Galorport C, Ou G. et al. Assessment of capsule endoscopy utilizing Capsocam Plus in patients with suspected small bowel disease including pilot study with remote access patients during pandemic. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol 2021; 4: 269-273
• 26 Zwinger LL, Siegmund B, Stroux A. et al. CapsoCam SV-1 versus PillCam SB 3 in the detection of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: results of a prospective randomized comparative multicenter study. J Clin Gastroenterol 2019; 53: e101-e106
• 27 Pioche M, Vanbervliet G, Jacob P. et al. Prospective randomized comparison between axial- and lateral-viewing capsule endoscopy systems in patients with obscure digestive bleeding. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 479-484