ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT05921136Updated Aug 1, 2023

Recycling Potential in Endoscopy - a Multicentre Prospective Observational Study

An observational study in Sustainable Development, sponsored by Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Hospital. Recruiting at 4 sites in Germany. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-08-01.

Sponsored by Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Hospital · Observational

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was expected by Oct 2023, 3 years ago, but the record still lists the study as recruiting.
  • Started Jun 2023; still recruiting 3 years 4 months later.
Study type
Observational
Model
Ecologic or community
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
2,000
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The present trial is an observational prospective trial. The aim of the present study is to analyse the recycling potential in endoscopy units in hospitals and outpatient facilities. For this purpose, waste is collected for four weeks each at four locations (two inpatient and two outpatient facilities). Questions such as quantity and quality of garbage will be addressed and compared between the different facilities.

Read the detailed description

Current considerations by various professional societies are developing theoretical concepts with the goal of greenhouse-neutral endoscopy operation. However, the scientific data situation here is expandable. One study calculated an extrapolation for the US based on the mean value of weight and volume of a total of 278 endoscopies in five days at two hospitals. However, a differentiated consideration of various parameters such as examination type and the location of the endoscopy (outpatient vs. inpatient) was missing here.

In different endoscopic departments waste will be weighed. Those are two hospitals (university and non-university) and two outpatient endoscopy units, each for four weeks. The waste will be divided into residual waste, paper and plastic in order to record the possible recycling potential. In addition, it will be investigated how great the savings potential is by avoiding disposable products (gowns, endoscopes).

The present study addresses the following end points:

  • Parts of waste per examination in g (residual waste, plastic, paper).
  • Savings potential through reusable items (e.g. gowns)
  • Comparison of disposable vs. reusable endoscopes
  • Descriptive description of the amount of waste at the different locations
  • Statistical comparison of the amount of waste in the different locations
  • Statistical comparison of the amount of waste per examination
  • Statistical comparison of the amount of waste between out-patient and in-patient
02

Conditions studied

  • Sustainable Development

Keywords

  • endoscopic procedures
  • endoscopy
  • environmental health
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Hospital is the lead sponsor of 160 studies on the registry; 8 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

No patients will be included but only the garbage after the procedures unrelated to patients.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Endoscopic examination (gastroscopy, colonoscopy, combined gastro and colonoscopy, ERCP, EUS, bronchoscopy)
  • Type of examination (interventional vs diagnostic)
  • Known multi-resistant germs (yes vs no)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

none

05

Study design

Observational model
Ecologic or community
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
2,000 participants (estimated)
Patient registry
No
06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Amount of waste generated per examination in grams (g)

    The amount of waste per procedure will be collected by weighing the garbage of after every procedure.

    Time frame: 16 weeks

Secondary outcomes

  1. Parts of waste per examination in g (residual waste, plastic, paper).

    Time frame: 16 weeks

  2. Saving potential defined by the amount of reusable items in g per procedure (e.g. gowns)

    The saving potential is defined as the amount of reusable items in g per procedure. Ruasable items are defined as items that are available as one way and multi-way products. An example are gowns.

    Time frame: 16 weeks

  3. Comparison of the amount of waste in g in disposable vs. reusable endoscopes.

    Time frame: 16 weeks

  4. Descriptive description of the amount of waste after 4 weeks in kg and per produre in g at the different locations.

    Time frame: 16 weeks

  5. Statistical comparison of the amount of waste in the different locations

    Time frame: 16 weeks

  6. Statistical comparison of the amount of waste per examination

    Time frame: 16 weeks

  7. Statistical comparison of the amount of waste between out-patient and in-patient departments

    Time frame: 16 weeks

07

Study locations

1 of 4 sites recruiting
  • MDZ Magendarmzentrum, Gastroenterologisch, internistische Gemeinschaftspraxis
    Darmstadt, Hessen 64287, Germany
    Not yet recruiting
  • Klinikum der J. W. Goethe-Universität
    Frankfurt am Main, Hessen 60590, Germany
    Not yet recruiting
  • IPG Hanau, Praxis für Gastroenterologie
    Hanau, Hessen 63450, Germany
    Recruiting
  • Klinikum Hanau, Klinik für Gastroenterologie, Diabetologie und Infektiologie
    Hanau, Hessen 63450, Germany
    Completed

    Not enrolling at this site.

08

References and documents

Publications

  • Rodriguez de Santiago E, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Pohl H, Agrawal D, Arvanitakis M, Baddeley R, Bak E, Bhandari P, Bretthauer M, Burga P, Donnelly L, Eickhoff A, Hayee B, Kaminski MF, Karlovic K, Lorenzo-Zuniga V, Pellise M, Pioche M, Siau K, Siersema PD, Stableforth W, Tham TC, Triantafyllou K, Tringali A, Veitch A, Voiosu AM, Webster GJ, Vienne A, Beilenhoff U, Bisschops R, Hassan C, Gralnek IM, Messmann H. Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement. Endoscopy. 2022 Aug;54(8):797-826. doi: 10.1055/a-1859-3726. Epub 2022 Jul 8. PubMed 35803275 ↗
  • Namburar S, von Renteln D, Damianos J, Bradish L, Barrett J, Aguilera-Fish A, Cushman-Roisin B, Pohl H. Estimating the environmental impact of disposable endoscopic equipment and endoscopes. Gut. 2022 Jul;71(7):1326-1331. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324729. Epub 2021 Dec 1. PubMed 34853058 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 1, 2023, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05921136
Responsible party
Georg Dultz (Goethe University Hospital Frankfurt, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Hospital) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jun 27, 2023
Start date
Jun 12, 2023
Primary completion
Oct 30, 2023 (estimated)
Completion
Oct 30, 2023 (estimated)
Last update
Aug 1, 2023

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion