IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0339058.html

Carbon footprint comparison of video intubation tools: Disposable laryngoscopes, reusable laryngoscopes, and stylets

Author

Listed:
  • Danyang Pan
  • Yating Yang
  • Sirui Chen
  • Jinhe Deng
  • Gaofeng Zhao
  • Min Zhong

Abstract

Purpose: As healthcare systems grapple with their 5% global carbon footprint contribution, sustainable medical device selection emerges as a critical decarbonization lever. This life cycle assessment (LCA) quantifies environmental disparities among three prevalent video intubation tools—Disposable video laryngoscopes (VLs), reusable VLs, and video Stylets—to guide evidence-based procurement. Methods: Using International Organization for Standardization (ISO)14040 compliant life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology—the international standard defining LCA principles and framework—we quantified cradle-to-grave emissions for three video intubation devices manufactured by Zhejiang UE Medical Corp. The functional unit (one tracheal intubation) incorporated material extraction, manufacturing, low-temperature LTPS/ HLD, transportation, and disposal. SimaPro 9.4.0 with Ecoinvent 3.8 database calculated CO₂ equivalents (kg CO₂e), validated through sensitivity analyses of sterilization loading (10–80 devices/cycle) and regional grids. Results: The HLD-disinfected video stylet demonstrated superior environmental performance, emitting 98.24 kg CO₂e per 500 procedures—45.8% and 42.0% lower than reusable VLs (181.45 kg CO₂e) and disposable VLs (169.47 kg CO₂e), respectively. Sensitivity analyses identified sterilization loading as the dominant variable: half-load (50% chamber utilization) reduced emissions by 89–91% versus single-device processing, with full-load optimization yielding incremental 11–14% reductions. Process and regional variability further revealed that HLD decreased emissions by 19–24% compared to LTPS, while grid carbon intensity caused 24–33% variability (India vs. EU). Scenario comparisons confirmed the video stylet’s environmental dominance across sterilization methods—even with LTPS (349.99 kg CO₂e/500 uses), it maintained a 45% reduction over reusable VL baselines, whereas HLD-treated video stylets (94.32 kg CO₂e) showed 6.7-fold lower emissions than disposable VLs and 59% below HLD-reprocessed reusable VLs. Conclusions: HLD-reprocessed video stylets are the environmentally optimal choice for high-volume, low-infection-risk settings. For low-throughput or high-risk scenarios, providers should balance environmental impacts with clinical requirements through frequency and resource assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Danyang Pan & Yating Yang & Sirui Chen & Jinhe Deng & Gaofeng Zhao & Min Zhong, 2025. "Carbon footprint comparison of video intubation tools: Disposable laryngoscopes, reusable laryngoscopes, and stylets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(12), pages 1-13, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0339058
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0339058
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0339058
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0339058&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0339058?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew J Eckelman & Jodi Sherman, 2016. "Environmental Impacts of the U.S. Health Care System and Effects on Public Health," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-14, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hensher, Martin & Canny, Ben & Zimitat, Craig & Campbell, Julie & Palmer, Andrew, 2020. "Health care, overconsumption and uneconomic growth: A conceptual framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    2. Zahid Yousaf & Brutu Mădălina & Daniela Mihai & Hrestic Maria-Luiza & Ștefan Maria Cristina & Popescu Constantin, 2022. "Pollution Reduction as Catalyst between Environmental Resources Conservation Efforts and Sustainable Development: Investigation of Energy Firms in Circular Economy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-13, September.
    3. Lara Schmidt & Sabine Bohnet-Joschko, 2025. "Emergent climate protection strategies in German hospitals: A cluster analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(5), pages 1-18, May.
    4. EG Chiky & HW Famie, 2023. "Environmental-Friendly Physiotherapy Practices on a Global Scale," Inventum Biologicum: An International Journal of Biological Research, World BIOLOGICA, vol. 3(2), pages 47-51.
    5. Ying-Wei Wang & Shu-Li Chia & Chien-Ming Chou & Michael S. Chen & Jürgen M. Pelikan & Cordia Chu & Mei-Hsiu Wang & Chiachi Bonnie Lee, 2019. "Development and Validation of a Self-Assessment Tool for an Integrative Model of Health Promotion in Hospitals: Taiwan’s Experience," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-18, June.
    6. Bogdan Dima & Ştefana Maria Dima & Adriana Tiron Tudor, 2024. "Societal sustainable development and long‐run economic growth: How do we stand?," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 4222-4249, August.
    7. Manfred Lenzen & Mengyu Li & Arunima Malik & Francesco Pomponi & Ya-Yen Sun & Thomas Wiedmann & Futu Faturay & Jacob Fry & Blanca Gallego & Arne Geschke & Jorge Gómez-Paredes & Keiichiro Kanemoto & St, 2020. "Global socio-economic losses and environmental gains from the Coronavirus pandemic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-13, July.
    8. Włodzimierz Kanownik & Agnieszka Policht-Latawiec & Wioletta Fudała, 2019. "Nutrient Pollutants in Surface Water—Assessing Trends in Drinking Water Resource Quality for a Regional City in Central Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-15, April.
    9. Or, Zeynep & Seppänen, Anna-Veera, 2024. "The role of the health sector in tackling climate change: A narrative review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    10. Ali Koç & Serap Ulusam Seçkiner, 2024. "Analysing and forecasting the energy consumption of healthcare facilities in the short and medium term. A case study," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 34(3), pages 165-192.
    11. Nala Alahmari & Sarah Alswedani & Ahmed Alzahrani & Iyad Katib & Aiiad Albeshri & Rashid Mehmood, 2022. "Musawah: A Data-Driven AI Approach and Tool to Co-Create Healthcare Services with a Case Study on Cancer Disease in Saudi Arabia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-41, March.
    12. Qu, Weihua & Qu, Guohua & Zhang, Xindong & Robert, Dixon, 2021. "The impact of public participation in environmental behavior on haze pollution and public health in China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 319-335.
    13. Weiwei Mo & Darline Balen & Marianna Moura & Kevin H. Gardner, 2018. "A Regional Analysis of the Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Tradeoffs of Different Economic Growth Paths," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16, February.
    14. Peng Jiang & Jiří Jaromír Klemeš & Yee Van Fan & Xiuju Fu & Yong Mong Bee, 2021. "More Is Not Enough: A Deeper Understanding of the COVID-19 Impacts on Healthcare, Energy and Environment Is Crucial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-22, January.
    15. Amy Booth, 2022. "Carbon footprint modelling of national health systems: Opportunities, challenges and recommendations," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1885-1893, July.
    16. Anastasios Sepetis & Paraskevi N. Zaza & Fotios Rizos & Pantelis G. Bagos, 2022. "Identifying and Predicting Healthcare Waste Management Costs for an Optimal Sustainable Management System: Evidence from the Greek Public Sector," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    17. Esteban A. Soto & Andrea Hernandez-Guzman & Alexander Vizcarrondo-Ortega & Amaya McNealey & Lisa B. Bosman, 2022. "Solar Energy Implementation for Health-Care Facilities in Developing and Underdeveloped Countries: Overview, Opportunities, and Challenges," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-17, November.
    18. Masoumeh Vali & Khodakaram Salimifard & Amir H. Gandomi & Thierry J. Chaussalet, 2022. "Care process optimization in a cardiovascular hospital: an integration of simulation–optimization and data mining," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(1), pages 685-712, November.
    19. Miguel Gómez-Chaparro & Justo García-Sanz-Calcedo & Luis Armenta Márquez, 2018. "Analytical Determination of Medical Gases Consumption and Their Impact on Hospital Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-17, August.
    20. Alfonso González González & Justo García-Sanz-Calcedo & David Rodríguez Salgado, 2018. "Evaluation of Energy Consumption in German Hospitals: Benchmarking in the Public Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0339058. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.