Objective:

To discuss the environmental impact of reusable versus disposable endoscopic scopes in urological procedures.

Key Findings:

• Single-use fURS have a threefold higher potential environmental impact compared to reusable fURS (4.32 vs. 1.24 kg CO2 equivalents).
• Sensitivity analyses favored reusable devices despite variations in electricity mix and water usage for reprocessing.
• Waste generated by single-use devices significantly exceeds that of reusable devices.

Interpretation:

The findings underscore the importance of evaluating the environmental footprint of medical devices, particularly in urology, and advocate for further research in this area.

Limitations:

• The review highlights limitations in the included studies and calls for standardized research.
• The need for detailed examinations of individual devices is emphasized.

Conclusion:

The letter supports the findings of the systematic review and encourages ongoing research to better understand and mitigate the environmental impact of urological practices.