| Title: |
Comparative 30‐day life cycle assessment of bladder drainage strategies |
| Authors: |
Peyrottes, Arthur; Long-Depaquit, Thibaut; Fourmarier, Marc; Pradere, Benjamin; Peyronnet, Benoit; Zieleskiewicz, Laurent; Uleri, Alessandro; Cornu, Jean‐nicolas; Misrai, Vincent; Mallet, Richard; Baboudjian, Michael |
| Contributors: |
Hopital Saint-Louis AP-HP (AP-HP); Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP); Hôpital Nord CHU - APHM; Hopital d'instruction des armées Sainte-Anne Toulon (HIA); Service de Santé des Armées; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes CHU Rennes = Rennes University Hospital Pontchaillou; Nutrition, Métabolismes et Cancer (NuMeCan); Université de Rennes (UR)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE); Nutrition, Inflammation et axe Microbiote-Intestin-Cerveau (ADEN); Université de Rouen Normandie (UNIROUEN); Normandie Université (NU)-Normandie Université (NU)-Institute for Research and Innovation in Biomedicine (IRIB); Normandie Université (NU)-Normandie Université (NU)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université de Rouen Normandie (UNIROUEN); Normandie Université (NU)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM); Institute for Research and Innovation in Biomedicine (IRIB); Normandie Université (NU)-Normandie Université (NU)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS); Service d'urologie CHU Rouen; CHU Rouen; Normandie Université (NU)-Normandie Université (NU)-Université de Rouen Normandie (UNIROUEN); Normandie Université (NU); Clinique Pasteur Toulouse; This study was supported by Rocamed SAM. The sponsor had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The authors thank Dr Michael Baboudjian for his contribution to primary data collection and device analysis. We also acknowledge the technical support provided by the Sustainability Task Force of the French Urological Association (AFU). Open access publication funding provided by COUPERIN CY26. |
| Source: |
ISSN: 1464-4096. |
| Publisher Information: |
CCSD; Wiley |
| Publication Year: |
2026 |
| Collection: |
Normandie Université: HAL |
| Subject Terms: |
Foley catheter; carbon footprint; clean intermittent self‐catheterisation; sustainability; urethral stent; [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio] |
| Description: |
International audience ; Objective: To identify the most environmentally sustainable urinary drainage strategies commonly used to manage bladder outlet obstruction and also to highlight actionable levers for reducing the footprint of urinary drainage in clinical practice.Materials and methods: We conducted a comparative life cycle assessment of three urinary drainage strategies (i.e., indwelling urinary catheter, clean intermittent self-catheterisation [CISC], and temporary urethral stent) over a 30-day period, in accordance with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040 and ISO 14044 standards. Primary data were collected via device disassembly and manufacturer consultation, with secondary data from the Ecoinvent version 3.9 database (Ecoinvent, Zurich, Switzerland). Impacts were modelled using the Environmental Footprint 3.0 method across 13 categories. Sensitivity analyses tested care delivery parameters and reusable catheters for CISC.Results: The mean climate change impact over 30 days was 96.5 kg CO2 equivalents (CO2-eq; 95% confidence interval [CI] 58.8-162) for indwelling catheterisation, 39.8 kg CO2-eq (95% CI 31.2-53.3) for disposable CISC catheters, and 16.1 kg CO2-eq (95% CI 8.4-29.2) for the stent. Indwelling catheterisation consistently showed the highest impact, CISC intermediate, and the stent the lowest. Relative to catheterisation, the stent reduced climate impact by 83%, fossil resource use by 83%, and water consumption by 92%. Reusable CISC catheters showed a comparable profile to the stent. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that home nurse travel, device replacement frequency, and patient autonomy substantially influenced overall impact. Limitations include the mono-country design.Conclusions: Device choice and care delivery models critically affect the environmental footprint of urinary drainage strategies. This study provides further strong arguments for promoting existing alternatives to the indwelling urinary catheter. |
| Document Type: |
article in journal/newspaper |
| Language: |
English |
| DOI: |
10.1111/bju.70304 |
| Availability: |
https://normandie-univ.hal.science/hal-05650803; https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.70304 |
| Accession Number: |
edsbas.8AAC7F56 |
| Database: |
BASE |