The APAGE Position Statements aimed to provide guidance to healthcare practitioners on clinical practices aligned with climate sustainability.

A taskforce convened by APAGE proposed provisional statements. Twenty-two gastroenterologists from the Asian Pacific region participated in online voting and consensus was assessed through an anonymized and iterative Delphi process.

There were five sections that addressed the rationale for climate action, the importance of adopting principles of waste management, clinical practice, gastrointestinal endoscopy, and issues related to advocacy and research. Sixteen statements achieved consensus and included the following: 1. APAGE recommends adopting prompt measures to reduce the carbon footprint of clinical practice due to the importance of climate action and its health cobenefits. 5. APAGE recommends adherence to professional clinical guidelines to optimize clinical care delivery in gastroenterology and hepatology to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures and tests. 8. APAGE recommends an emphasis on health promotion, disease prevention, and appropriate screening and surveillance, when resources are available, to reduce the environmental impact of managing more advanced diseases that require more intensive resources. 12. APAGE recommends that technological advances in endoscopic imaging and artificial intelligence, when available, be used to improve the precision of endoscopic diagnosis to reduce the risk of missed lesions and need for unnecessary biopsies. 13. APAGE recommends against the routine use of single-use endoscopes.

The position statements provide guidance to healthcare practitioners on clinical practices in gastroenterology, hepatology, and endoscopy that promote climate sustainability.

In March 2022, the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) released the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/AAMI ST91:2021, their latest update on comprehensive, flexible, and semirigid endoscope reprocessing. These updated standards recommend the sterilization of high-risk endoscopes when possible and provide new recommendations for the precleaning, leak testing, manual cleaning, visual inspection, automated reprocessing, drying, storage, and transport of endoscopes.

ANSI/AAMI ST91:2021 was compared with ANSI/AAMI ST91:2015 for major reprocessing differences that result in either time and/or cost increases. Time estimates were captured by explicit recommendation inclusion or taken from the literature. All the costs were estimated using publicly available resources.

The updated standards represent a potential 24.3-minute and 52.35 to 67.57 United States dollars increase per procedure in terms of reprocessing time and spending, respectively, not including capital investments. Capital costs per procedure were highly dependent on the procedure volume of the facility.

The new AAMI standards recommend several major changes, such as sterilization, for facilities to reprocess and manage endoscopes between uses. As more facilities increase their reprocessing methods to reflect the updated standards, they do so at a cost and introduce several delays. As the reprocessing landscape evolves, facilities should consider their true costs and alternative solutions, such as single-use endoscopes.

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is among the highest waste generator in healthcare facilities. The major reasons include production of large-volume non-renewable waste, use of single-use devices, and reprocessing or decontamination processes. Single-use endoscopic accessories have gradually replaced reusable devices over last two decades contributing to the rising impact of GI endoscopy on ecosystem. Several reports of infection outbreaks with reusable duodenoscopes raised concerns regarding the efficacy and adherence to standard disinfection protocols. Even the enhanced reprocessing techniques like double high-level disinfection have not been found to be the perfect ways for decontamination of duodenoscopes and therefore, paved the way for the development of single-use duodenoscopes. However, the use of single-use endoscopes is likely to amplify the net waste generated and carbon footprint of any endoscopy unit. Moreover, single-use devices challenge one of the major pillars of sustainability, that is, "reuse." In the era of climate change, a balanced approach is required taking into consideration patient safety as well as financial and environmental implications. The possible solutions to provide optimum care while addressing the impact on climate include selective use of disposable duodenoscopes and careful selection of accessories during a case. Other options include use of disposable endcaps and development of effective high-level disinfection techniques. The collaboration between the healthcare professionals and the manufacturers is paramount for the development of environmental friendly devices with low carbon footprint.

Previous studies have been published evaluating the benefits and drawbacks of clearing the common bile duct of stones using a single-stage approach (LCBDE + LC) versus a two-stage approach (ERCP followed by LC). These studies have demonstrated that a single-stage approach offers similar outcomes and morbidities as a two-stage approach, with the added benefit of a lower cost and shorter length of stays. However, it is significant we understand why LCBDE is not commonly performed currently and also the lapse in surgical trainee exposure and competence in LCBDE. This paper aims to address the lapse in surgical trainee exposure to LCBDE, evaluate the scopes currently available to perform LCBDE, and review current data evaluating the risks and benefits of single-stage versus two-stage approaches to.

We utilized PubMed to analyze all publications related to the various disposable scopes utilized to perform choledochoscopy. We also discuss the need for disposable scopes and how this new market niche is transforming the choledochoscopy space.

We analyzed the data related to single-stage and two-stage approach to choledocholithiasis. We noted an overall shorter length of stay and also decreased costs in favor of a single-stage approach.

A single-stage LCBDE is the most cost-effective treatment option for choledocholithiasis in patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing a cholecystectomy. In addition, single-stage approach is associated with shorter length of stay. Knowledge of the available choledochoscopes and tools available to surgeons to perform choledochoscopy is significant. The evidence does support the use of disposable choledochoscope from a cost and cross-contamination perspective. Additionally, efforts should be made to incorporate LCBDE into the teaching paradigm of surgical training programs.

Background and study aims The costs of reusable endoscope reprocessing have been evaluated, yet external validity of the findings remains challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the costs of purchase, maintenance, microbiological control, and reprocessing of a reusable duodenoscope per endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in France. Study findings exclude the costs of infection, downtime due to breakdown, reprocessing single-use material disposal, and device disposal, all of which should also be considered. Materials and methods The study encompassed both observational and theoretical approaches. Observational data were collected in four hospitals, from December 2019 to December 2020, with an ad hoc survey, based on 2016 and 2018 national guidelines for duodenoscope reprocessing. Costs were modeled, using the same guidelines, assuming a mean workload of 223 ERCP/duodenoscope/year. Results The mean observed cost of purchase, maintenance, microbiological control, reprocessing (human resources and consumables), and overhead (additional 35%) with a reusable duodenoscope was €80.23 (standard deviation €3.77) per ERCP. The corresponding mean theoretical cost was €182.71 for manual reprocessing without endoscope drying cabinet (EDC), €191.36 for manual reprocessing with EDC, €235.25 for automated endoscope reprocessing (AER) without EDC, and €253.62 for AER with EDC. Conclusions Because procedures, equipment, volume activity, number of duodenoscopes, human resources, and internal work organizations are hospital-dependent, observed costs varied between hospitals. Theoretical costs were higher than observed costs, showing that the theoretical approach is not sufficient. Hypotheses to explain the difference between the two approaches include failing to measure some costs in the survey and challenges in guideline implementation.