MT Barakat et al. J Pediatr 2026;298:115248.The Environmental Impact of Pediatric Endoscopy: Small Feet Have a Disproportionately Large Carbon Footprint
Methods: The authors evaluated the carbon footprint of a pediatric endoscopy unit through a 2-week audit.
Key Findings:
- Pediatric procedures generated 3.48 kg waste per case with an annualized carbon footprint of 108.32 metric tons.


annually by a single pediatric endoscopy center.
(likely an underestimate)
Discussion:
- In comparison to an adult study, CO2 generation was “approximately 2.5 times higher than the CO2 produced by roughly the same number of adult endoscopy procedures.”
- “Several factors may contribute to this heightened carbon footprint… Perhaps the most significant is the performance of pediatric endoscopy procedures in the operating room rather than in independent free-standing endoscopy units at our center and many other centers…cleaning guidelines in the operating room environment tend to be more energy-intensive.”
- “The carbon footprint we calculated does not include the distance traveled to obtain
care at our institution.” - “ERCP produced the most solid waste of all procedures performed, which is not surprising given the abundance of single-use devices.”
- “Estimates based on adult endoscopy suggest that up to 40% of endoscopy-associated
waste could be diverted from landfills through recycling or reprocessing initiatives…In addition, we noted overuse of hazardous waste disposal, which requires incineration and produces harmful toxins and greenhouse gases.”
My take: This is a useful study showing the substantial carbon footprint and waste of pediatric endoscopy procedures, especially in hospital settings. I disagree with one part of the authors’ discussion:
“Avoidance of unnecessary procedures is the best way to minimize the endoscopy carbon footprint. However, case selection within pediatrics is a careful process, and thus, avoidable procedures are generally not performed.“
In my view, there is high variability in the use of endoscopy based on practitioner’s clinical care; there are many low yield cases with trivial findings. In addition, beyond a practitioners’ judgement and integrity, there are not incentives for careful patient selection.
Related blog posts:














