PDF icon PDF herunterladen
Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2025; 13: a26451463
DOI: 10.1055/a-2645-1463
Review

Single-use versus reusable endoscopes in gastroenterology: Systematic review of full and partial economic evaluations

Mandana Zanganeh 
1   Centre for Health Economics at Warwick, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN2707)
,
Yufei Jiang
1   Centre for Health Economics at Warwick, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN2707)
,
Norman Waugh
2   Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN1019)
,
Anna Brown 
3   Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN2707)
4   Birmingham Centre for Evidence and Implementation Science, School of Social Policy and Society, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN1724)
,
Yen-Fu Chen 
3   Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN2707)
4   Birmingham Centre for Evidence and Implementation Science, School of Social Policy and Society, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN1724)
,
Ramesh P. Arasaradnam
5   Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN2708)
,
Lazaros Andronis
1   Centre for Health Economics at Warwick, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN2707)
,
on behalf of the "SUMU Endo" project group› Institutsangaben
Gefördert durch: NIHR Health and Social Care Delivery Research Programme NIHR152311
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar aufeRef
  Lizenzen und Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Background and study aims

Future decision making on health care will need to consider broader environmental and sustainability issues. One example is adoption of single-use endoscopes instead of reusable endoscopes in gastroenterology, largely due to their perceived benefit of reducing cross-infection. Besides considerations related to technical performance, there are differences not only in the cost to healthcare but also in the impact they have on the environment. The primary aim of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence on the costs and consequences of using single-use gastrointestinal endoscopes vs. reusable ones adopting various reprocessing methods. The secondary aim was to review and discuss the way in which environmental impact is costed and reported by the studies included in this review.

Methods

We searched multiple databases and the internet to September 2024. We included and quality-assessed partial and full economic evaluations according to predetermined criteria.

Results

Seven studies (2 cost analyses and 5 cost-utility analyses [CUA]) were included. All focused on duodenoscopes for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Five studies compared single-use with reusable duodenoscopes whereas two studies compared different reprocessing methods for reusable duodenoscopes. The most common outcomes were infection risk (n = 6) and quality-adjusted life years (n = 5). Environmental impact was considered in only two studies. All studies stated that the per-procedure cost was higher using single-use endoscopes but three CUAs indicated that single-use endoscopes were more cost-effective. Several studies used doubtful assumptions, reducing their credibility.

Conclusions

Future economic evaluations of single-use vs. reusable endoscopes require more robust comparative evidence and should include costs and consequences beyond health, especially environmental impact.

Keywords

Endoscopy Upper GI Tract - Endoscopy Lower GI Tract - Pancreatobiliary (ERCP/PTCD) - Statistics

Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 11. Dezember 2024

Angenommen nach Revision: 28. Mai 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
29. Juli 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Bibliographical Record
Mandana Zanganeh, Yufei Jiang, Norman Waugh, Anna Brown, Yen-Fu Chen, Ramesh P. Arasaradnam, Lazaros Andronis. Single-use versus reusable endoscopes in gastroenterology: Systematic review of full and partial economic evaluations. Endosc Int Open 2025; 13: a26451463.
DOI: 10.1055/a-2645-1463
 

  • References

  • 1 Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC. et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: update 2021. Gastroenterology 2022; 162: 621-644
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Ravindran S, Marshall S, Healey C. et al. P196 The national census of UK endoscopy services 2021. Frontline Gastroenterol 2022; 71: A136-A136
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Pioche M, Pohl H, Neves JAC. et al. Environmental impact of single-use versus reusable gastroscopes. Gut 2024; 73: 1816-1822
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 4 England, NHS. Improvement, NHS. Delivering a ‘Net Zero’National Health Service London. 2020.
  • 5 Ross AS, Bruno MJ, Kozarek RA. et al. Novel single-use duodenoscope compared with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes for ERCP: a randomized bench-model comparison. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 396-403
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Ramai D, Smit E, Kani HT. et al. Cannulation rates and technical performance evaluation of commericially available single-use duodenoscopes for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis 2024; 56: 123-129
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Cinelli M, Coles SR, Sadik O. et al. A framework of criteria for the sustainability assessment of nanoproducts. J Cleaner Production 2016; 126: 277-287
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 88: 105906
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T. et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. London: Cochrane; 2019
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K. et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford university press; 2015
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Evers S, Goossens M, De Vet H. et al. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations. Consensus Health Econ Criteria 2005; 21: 240-245
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Almario CV, May FP, Shaheen NJ. et al. Cost-utility of competing strategies to prevent endoscopic transmission of carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 1666
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Barakat MT, Ghosh S, Banerjee SJGE. Cost utility analysis of strategies for minimizing risk of duodenoscope-related infections. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 95: 929-938 e2
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 14 omman S, Kozarek RA, Thaker AM. et al. Economic burden of enhanced practices of duodenoscopes reprocessing and surveillance: balancing risk and cost containment. Endosc Int Open 2021; 9: E1404-E1412
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Das A, Cangelosi MJ, Muthusamy VRJT. et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of Exalt model D single-use duodenoscope versus current duodenoscope reprocessing methods. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 24: 16-25
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Kwakman JA, Poley MJ, Vos MC. et al. Single-use duodenoscopes compared with reusable duodenoscopes in patients carrying multidrug-resistant microorganisms: a break-even cost analysis. Endosc Int Open 2023; 11: E571-E580
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Nicolás-Pérez D, Gimeno-García AZ, Romero-García RJ. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of single-use duodenoscope applied to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Pancreas 2024; 53: e357-e367
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Travis HS, Russell RV, Adamsen S. et al. Early cost-utility analysis comparing the sterile single-use Ambu aScope Duodeno to reusable duodenoscopes. SSRN Electronic Journal 2020.
  • 19 Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A. et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 2016; 316: 1093-1103
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Bank of England. Inflation calculator. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator
  • 21 Bank of England. Exchange rates. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/exchange-rates
  • 22 Hutfless S, Shiratori Y, Chu D. et al. Risk factors for infections after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): a retrospective cohort analysis of US Medicare Fee-For-Service claims, 2015–2021. BMJ Open 2022; 12: e065077
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 23 U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). 522 Postmarket Surveillance Studies Database (Sampling and Culturing Study, Duodenoscopes). https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pss.cfm?t_id=354&c_id=3726
  • 24 Travis HS, Ehlers LH, Thornton JJPOA. The total cost of reuseable duodenoscopes-are single-use duodenoscopes the future of ERCP?. PharmacoEconomics - Open 2020; 5 (02)
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Bang JY, Sutton B, Hawes R. et al. Concept of disposable duodenoscope: at what cost?. Gut 2019; 68: 1915-1917
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Le NNT, Hernandez LV, Vakil N. et al. Environmental and health outcomes of single-use versus reusable duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 96: 1002-1008
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Dhar S, Chowdhury MAF. Impact of environmental accounting reporting practices on financial performance: evidence from banking sector of Bangladesh. Int J Asian Business Information Management 2021; 12: 24-42
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Zhang Q, He Y, Cheng R. et al. Recent advances in toxicological research and potential health impact of microplastics and nanoplastics in vivo. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2022; 29: 40415-40448
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Sangkham S, Faikhaw O, Munkong N. et al. A review on microplastics and nanoplastics in the environment: Their occurrence, exposure routes, toxic studies, and potential effects on human health. Marine Pollut Bull 2022; 181: 113832
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Frew EJ. Aligning health economics methods to fit with the changing world of public health. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2017; 15: 287-289
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Hensher M. Incorporating environmental impacts into the economic evaluation of health care systems: Perspectives from ecological economics. Resources Conservation Recycling 2020; 154: 104623
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 32 de Preux L, Rizmie D. Beyond financial efficiency to support environmental sustainability in economic evaluations. Future Healthc J 2018; 5: 103-107
    Suche in Google Scholar