Footprints in the scan: reducing the carbon footprint of diagnostic tools in urology.
Journal
Current opinion in urology
ISSN: 1473-6586
Titre abrégé: Curr Opin Urol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9200621
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Jun 2024
07 Jun 2024
Historique:
medline:
7
6
2024
pubmed:
7
6
2024
entrez:
7
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
There is an ever-growing focus on climate change and its impact on our society. With healthcare contributing a sizeable proportion of carbon emissions, the sector has a duty to address its environmental impact. We highlight the recent progress, current challenges, and future prospects for reducing the carbon footprint in diagnostic urology, specifically for imaging, without compromising patient care. The review is separated into four key areas of recent research: the design of a green radiology department, considering both infrastructural as well as behavioural changes that promote sustainability; individual scanners, where we provide an update on recent technological advancements and changes in behaviour that may enhance sustainable use; responsible resource allocation, where it is important to derive the maximal benefit for patients through the smallest use of resources; the recent research regarding single versus reusable urologic endoscopes as a case example. We offer an overview of the present sustainability landscape in diagnostic urology with the aim of encouraging additional research in areas where existing practices may be challenged. To protect the environment, attention is drawn to both more simple steps that can be taken as well as some more complex and expensive ones.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38847801
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000001196
pii: 00042307-990000000-00163
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Références
Romanello M, Napoli CD, Green C, et al. The 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: the imperative for a health-centred response in a world facing irreversible harms. Lancet 2023; 402:2346–2394.
Brown M, Schoen JH, Gross J, et al. Climate change and radiology: impetus for change and a toolkit for action. Radiology 2023; 307:e230229.
Pandey D, Agrawal M, Pandey JS. Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation. Environ Monit Assess 2011; 178:135–160.
Picano E, Mangia C, D’Andrea A. Climate change, carbon dioxide emissions, and medical imaging contribution. J Clin Med 2022; 12:215.
Heye T, Knoerl R, Wehrle T, et al. The energy consumption of radiology: energy- and cost-saving opportunities for CT and MRI operation. Radiology 2020; 295:593–605.
Klein HM. A new approach to the improvement of energy efficiency in radiology practices. Rofo 2023; 195:416–425.
Lu MT, Tellis WM, Fidelman N, et al. Reducing the rate of repeat imaging: import of outside images to PACS. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198:628–634.
Mariampillai J, Rockall A, Manuellian C, et al. The green and sustainable radiology department. Radiologie (Heidelb) 2023; 63: (Suppl 2): 21–26.
Woolen SA, Becker AE, Martin AJ, et al. Ecodesign and operational strategies to reduce the carbon footprint of MRI for energy cost savings. Radiology 2023; 307:e230441.
Heye T, Meyer MT, Merkle EM, Vosshenrich J. Turn it off! A simple method to save energy and CO(2) emissions in a hospital setting with focus on radiology by monitoring nonproductive energy-consuming devices. Radiology 2023; 307:e230162.
McCarthy CJ, Gerstenmaier JF, AC ON, et al. “EcoRadiology” – pulling the plug on wasted energy in the radiology department. Acad Radiol 2014; 21:1563–1566.
Chaban YV, Vosshenrich J, McKee H, et al. Environmental sustainability and MRI: challenges, opportunities, and a call for action. J Magn Reson Imaging 2023; 59:1149–1167.
Büttner L, Posch H, Auer TA, et al. Switching off for future – cost estimate and a simple approach to improving the ecological footprint of radiological departments. Eur J Radiol Open 2021; 8:100320.
Woernle A, Englman C, Dickinson L, et al. Picture perfect: the status of image quality in prostate MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2023; 59:1930–1952.
Arnold TC, Freeman CW, Litt B, Stein JM. Low-field MRI: clinical promise and challenges. J Magn Reson Imaging 2023; 57:25–44.
Hori M, Hagiwara A, Goto M, et al. Low-field magnetic resonance imaging: its history and renaissance. Invest Radiol 2021; 56:669–679.
Hudson D, Sahibbil JP. Remote scanning support in magnetic resonance imaging: friend or foe? Radiography (Lond) 2022; 28:739–745.
Burn PR, Freeman SJ, Andreou A, et al. A multicentre assessment of prostate MRI quality and compliance with UK and international standards. Clin Radiol 2019; 74:894.e19–894.e25.
Sumner C, Ikuta I, Garg T, et al. Approaches to greening radiology. Acad Radiol 2023; 30:528–535.
McDonald S, Fabbri A, Parker L, et al. Medical donations are not always free: an assessment of compliance of medicine and medical device donations with World Health Organization guidelines (2009–2017). Int Health 2019; 11:379–402.
Penzkofer T, Tempany-Afdhal CM. Prostate cancer detection and diagnosis: the role of MR and its comparison with other diagnostic modalities—a radiologist's perspective. NMR Biomed 2014; 27:3–15.
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378:1767–1777.
Leapman MS, Thiel CL, Gordon IO, et al. Environmental impact of prostate magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2023; 83:463–471.
Asif A, Nathan A, Ng A, et al. Comparing biparametric to multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men (PRIME): a prospective, international, multicentre, noninferiority within-patient, diagnostic yield trial protocol. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e070280.
Rodler S, Ramacciotti LS, Maas M, et al. The impact of telemedicine in reducing the carbon footprint in healthcare: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of 68 million clinical consultations. Eur Urol Focus 2023; 9:873–887.
Eldred-Evans D, Connor MJ, Bertoncelli Tanaka M, et al. The rapid assessment for prostate imaging and diagnosis (RAPID) prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. BJU Int 2023; 131:461–470.
Ramacciotti LS, Kaneko M, Eppler M, et al. Editorial comment: environmental impact of prostate magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Int Braz J Urol 2023; 49:383–385.
Hendee WR, Becker GJ, Borgstede JP, et al. Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. Radiology 2010; 257:240–245.
Merkle EM, Bamberg F, Vosshenrich J. The impact of modern imaging techniques on carbon footprints: relevance and outlook. Eur Urol Focus 2023; 9:891–893.
Maskell G. Why does demand for medical imaging keep rising? BMJ 2022; 379:o2614.
McAlister S, McGain F, Petersen M, et al. The carbon footprint of hospital diagnostic imaging in Australia. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 2022; 24:100459.
Alshqaqeeq F, McGuire C, Overcash M, et al. Choosing radiology imaging modalities to meet patient needs with lower environmental impact. Resour Conserv Recycl 2020; 155:104657.
Emery DJ, Shojania KG, Forster AJ, et al. Overuse of magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173:823–825.
Arepally A, Omary RA, Vandenbergh MP. Scanning the planet: radiology's grand opportunity to address climate change. J Am Coll Radiol 2022; 19 (Pt B):217–219.
Furlan L, Di Francesco P, Tobaldini E, et al. The environmental cost of unwarranted variation in the use of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography scans. Eur J Intern Med 2023; 111:47–53.
Pasquale L, Maurano A, Cengia G, et al. Infection prevention in endoscopy practice: comparative evaluation of re-usable vs single-use endoscopic valves. Infect Prev Pract 2021; 3:100123.
Baboudjian M, Pradere B, Martin N, et al. Life cycle assessment of reusable and disposable cystoscopes: a path to greener urological procedures. Eur Urol Focus 2023; 9:681–687.
Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, et al. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 2009; 91:1–21.
Hogan D, Rauf H, Kinnear N, Hennessey DB. The carbon footprint of single-use flexible cystoscopes compared with reusable cystoscopes. J Endourol 2022; 36:1460–1464.
Jahrreiss V, Sarrot P, Davis NF, Somani B. Environmental impact of flexible cystoscopy: a comparative analysis between carbon footprint of Isiris® single-use cystoscope and reusable flexible cystoscope and a systematic review of literature. J Endourol 2024; 38:386–394.
Kemble JP, Winoker JS, Patel SH, et al. Environmental impact of single-use and reusable flexible cystoscopes. BJU Int 2023; 131:617–622.
Hogan D, Hennessey DB, Response to Rizan, et al. The carbon footprint of single-use flexible cystoscopes compared with reusable cystoscopes—clarification of methods due to apparent misinterpretation. J Endourol 2023; 37:1145–1146.
Davis NF, McGrath S, Quinlan M, et al. Carbon footprint in flexible ureteroscopy: a comparative study on the environmental impact of reusable and single-use ureteroscopes. J Endourol 2018; 32:214–217.
Sustainability and the NHS, Public Health and Social Care system – Ipsos Mori survey. Sustainable Development Unit for NHS England 2016.Delivering a ‘Net Zero’ National Health Service: NHS England, NHS Improvement; 2020. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2022/07/B1728-delivering-a-net-zero-nhs-july-2022.pdf.
Pandit K, Yodkhunnatham N, Bagrodia A, Monga M. Sustainability in urology: ideas for a greener future. Eur Urol Focus 2023; 9:894–896.
Kornberg Z, Wu J, Wilmot H, et al. A leak in the system: addressing the environmental impact of urologic care. Eur Urol 2023; 84:260–262.
Berthold J. Siemens Healthineers and UCSF Create First Carbon-Neutral Radiology Imaging Service; 2021. Available at: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/11/421756/siemens-healthineers-and-ucsf-create-first-carbon-neutral-radiology-imaging#:∼:text=Siemens%20Healthineers%20and%20UCSF%20Create%20First%20Carbon%2DNeutral%20Radiology%20Imaging%20Service,-New%20Agreement%20Focuses&text=Siemens%20Healthineers%20and%20UC%20San,radiological%20imaging%20in%20Northern%20California.