The impact of radical prostatectomy on global climate: a prospective multicentre study comparing laparoscopic versus robotic surgery

BACKGROUND

More than 4% of the global greenhouse gas emissions are generated by healthcare system. Focusing on the environmental impact of minimally invasive surgery, we assessed and compared the CO2 emissions between Robot-assisted (RALP) and Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (LRP).

METHODS

In patients prospectively enrolled, we evaluated the age, surgical and anesthesiologic time, postoperative intensive care unit and hospital stay, blood transfusion, pre- and postoperative hemoglobin and Gleason score, open conversion need, and complications (Clavien-Dindo classification). We assessed the life cycle to estimate the energy consumption for surgical procedures and hospital stays. We reported the materials, CO2 produced, and fluid quantity infused and dispersed. Disposable and reusable materials and instruments were weighed and divided into metal, plastic, and composite fibers. The CO2 consumption for disposal and decontamination was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 223 patients investigated, 119 and 104 patients underwent RALP and LRP, respectively. The two groups were comparable as regards age and preoperative Gleason score. The laparoscopic and robotic instruments weighed 1733 g and 1737 g, respectively. The CO2 emissions due to instrumentation were higher in the laparoscopic group, with the majority coming from plastic and composite fiber components. The CO2 emissions for metal components were higher in the robotic group. The robot functioned at 3.5 kW/h, producing 4 kg/h of CO2. The laparoscopic column operated at 600 W/h, emitting ~1 kg/h of CO2. The operating room operated at 3,0 kW/h. The operating time was longer in the laparoscopic group, resulting in higher CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions from hospital room energy consumption were lower in the robot-assisted group. The total CO2 emissions were ~47 kg and ~60 kg per procedure in the robot-assisted and laparoscopic groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

RALP generates substantially less CO2 than LRP owing to the use of more reusable surgical supplies, shorter operative time and hospital stay.

Surgical Hand Antisepsis: Environmental and Cost Impact in Hand Surgery

Health care systems, including operating rooms, are a considerable contributor to environmental waste. Given ongoing concerns regarding water scarcity in the United States and worldwide, action to reduce water utilization should be taken. Traditional water-based hand scrubbing wastes an estimated 11 L of water per scrub. Waterless hand rubbing with an alcohol-based solution has been shown to be as effective as traditional water-based hand scrubbing in surgical hand antisepsis and in preventing surgical site infections. Furthermore, alcohol-based rubbing results in less waste and reduced costs when compared with water-based hand scrubbing. The hand surgery operating room, including minor procedure rooms, serves as an opportunity to decrease water use and reduce the environmental impact of our field. Waterless alcohol-based hand rubbing for antisepsis may also be an opportunity to save money and provide value-based care to our patients.

Clinician and health service interventions to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions generated by healthcare: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise the available evidence on the effects of interventions designed to improve the delivery of healthcare that reduces the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of healthcare.

DESIGN

Systematic review and structured synthesis.

SEARCH SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase from inception to 3 May 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series and controlled or uncontrolled before-after studies that assessed interventions primarily designed to improve the delivery of healthcare that reduces the GHG emissions of healthcare initiated by clinicians or healthcare services within any setting.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was GHG emissions. Secondary outcomes were financial costs, effectiveness, harms, patient-relevant outcomes, engagement and acceptability.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Paired authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified checklist for observational studies and the certainty of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Data could not be pooled because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, so we synthesised results in a structured summary of intervention effects with vote counting based on direction of effect.

RESULTS

21 observational studies were included. Interventions targeted delivery of anaesthesia (12 of 21), waste/recycling (5 of 21), unnecessary test requests (3 of 21) and energy (1 of 21). The primary intervention type was clinician education. Most (20 of 21) studies were judged at unclear or high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Most studies reported effect estimates favouring the intervention (GHG emissions 17 of 18, costs 13 of 15, effectiveness 18 of 20, harms 1 of 1 and staff acceptability 1 of 1 studies), but the evidence is very uncertain for all outcomes (downgraded predominantly for observational study design and risk of bias). No studies reported patient-relevant outcomes other than death or engagement with the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions designed to improve the delivery of healthcare that reduces GHG emissions may reduce GHG emissions and costs, reduce anaesthesia use, waste and unnecessary testing, be acceptable to staff and have little to no effect on energy use or unintended harms, but the evidence is very uncertain. Rigorous studies that measure GHG emissions using gold-standard life cycle assessment are needed as well as studies in more diverse areas of healthcare. It is also important that future interventions to reduce GHG emissions evaluate the effect on beneficial and harmful patient outcomes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022309428.

Systematic review of carbon footprint of surgical procedures

The ecological sustainability of the operating room (OR) is a matter of recent interest. The present systematic review aimed to review the current literature assessing the carbon footprint of surgical procedures in different surgical fields. Following to the PRISMA statement checklist, three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) were searched by independent reviewers, who screened records on title and abstract first, and then on the full text. Risk of bias was evaluated using the MINORS system. Over the 878 articles initially identified, 36 original studies were included. They considered ophthalmologic surgical procedures (30.5%), general/digestive surgery (19.4%), gynecologic procedures (13.9%), orthopedic procedures (8.3%), neurosurgery (5.5%), otolaryngology/head and neck surgery (5.5%), plastic/dermatological surgery (5.5%), and cardiac surgery (2.8%). Despite a great methodological heterogeneity, data showed that a single surgical procedure emits 4-814 kgCO2e, with anesthetic gases and energy consumption representing the largest sources of greenhouse gas emission. Minimally invasive surgical techniques may require more resources than conventional open surgery, particularly for packaging and plastics, energy use, and waste production. Each OR has the potential to produce from 0.2 to 4kg of waste per case with substantial differences depending on the type of intervention, hospital setting, and geographic area. Overall, the selected studies were found to be of moderate quality. Based on a qualitative synthesis of the available literature, the OR can be targeted by programs and protocols implemented to reduce the carbon footprint and improve the waste stream of the OR.

Knowledge of surgeons and practical stances of healthcare institutions in the Ile-de-France region toward sustainable development: A cross-sectional study

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Climate change represents one of the gravest threats to health. Surgical activities mobilize a large number of resources which contribute to increased emission of CO2 and anesthetic gases in the environment. The objective of this study was to assess the level of knowledge of surgeons and the practical stances of healthcare establishments toward sustainable development.

METHODS

This was a descriptive cross-sectional study, lasting 2 months. From 1 May 2021 to 30 June 2021, surgeons were asked via an online questionnaire to participate.

RESULTS

A total of 131 out of the 457 contacted surgeons responded. A majority practiced in the private sector, 48.9% knew little about the rules of sustainable development in operating theaters, and 43.5% had an average level. The sustainable development charter was available in only 23% of establishments, while 19% had a sustainable development committee, and specific sustainable development actions were carried out in 27%.

CONCLUSION

The level of knowledge of surgeons in Île-de-France on sustainable development was low. In general, surgical units were not complying with the rules of good practice on CO2 reduction. It is necessary to find strategies to reduce the impact of operating theaters on the environment.

Uncertainties and opportunities in delivering environmentally sustainable surgery: the surgeons' view

Surgery is a carbon-heavy activity and creates a high volume of waste. Surgical teams around the world want to deliver more environmentally sustainable surgery but are unsure what to do and how to create change. There are many interventions available, but resources and time are limited. Capital investment into healthcare and engagement of senior management are challenging. However, frontline teams can change behaviours and drive wider change. Patients have a voice here too, as they would like to ensure their surgery does not harm their local community but are concerned about the effects on them when changes are made. Environmentally sustainable surgery is at the start of its journey. Surgeons need to rapidly upskill their generic knowledge base, identify which measures they can implement locally and take part in national research programmes. Surgical teams in the NHS have the chance to create a world-leading programme that can bring change to hospitals around the world. This article provides an overview of how surgeons see the surgical team being involved in environmentally sustainable surgery.

Clean and sustainable environment problems in forested areas related to recreational activities: case of Lithuania and Turkey

Introduction

With the acceleration of social life, people's interest and demand for forestry recreation activities is increasing. However, with this increase, it is inevitable that negative environmental effects will occur. Particularly mass participation poses an important risk for environmental sustainability. In this context, the aim of this study is to determine the recreational activities organized in forest areas in Turkey and Lithuania, the environmental effects of these activities and the precautions to be taken.

Methods

In Turkey and Lithuania, interviews were conducted to determine the attitudes of experts involved in recreational activity processes towards a clean environment and environmental sustainability. A semi-structured interview form was used in the interviews with forest operators and other experts. The sample group of the research consists of 17 experts from Turkey and Lithuania.

Results

According to the results of the research, recreational activities are organized in forest areas in both countries, but the most important problem related to these activities is waste production. In addition, there is also damage to the natural environment. Although there are legal regulations in both countries, there are no definite results in solving environmental problems.

Conclusions

It can be said that necessary measures such as raising awareness of people and ecological education should be taken in order to ensure the right of individuals to live in a safe and clean environment and at the same time to ensure sustainability in forest areas. as the improvement of legal regulation.

Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to Reducing the Environmental Impact of the Operating Room

INTRODUCTION

The operating room (OR) is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions both nationally and globally. Successful implementation of quality improvement initiatives requires understanding of key stakeholders' perspectives of the issues at hand. Our aim was to explore surgical, anesthesia, and OR staff member perspectives on barriers and facilitators to reducing OR waste.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Identified stakeholders from a single academic medical center were interviewed to identify important barriers and facilitators to reducing surgical waste. Two team members with qualitative research experience used deductive logic guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework of behavior change to identify themes within transcripts.

RESULTS

Nineteen participants including surgeons (n = 3, 15.8%), surgical residents (n = 5, 26.3%), an anesthesiologist (n = 1, 5.3%), anesthesia residents (n = 2, 10.5%), nurse anesthetists (n = 2, 10.5%), nurses (n = 5, 26.3%), and a surgical technologist (n = 1, 5.3%) were interviewed. Twelve of the 14 themes within the Theoretical Domains Framework were discovered in transcripts. Barriers within these themes included lack of resources to pursue environmental sustainability in the OR and the necessity of maintaining sterility for patient safety. Facilitators included emphasizing surgeon leadership within the OR to reduce unused supplies and spreading awareness of the environmental and economic impact of surgical waste.

CONCLUSIONS

Interviewed stakeholders were able to identify areas where improvements around surgical waste reduction and management could be made at the institution by describing barriers and facilitators to sustainability-driven interventions. Future surgical waste reduction initiatives at this institution will be guided by these important perspectives.

Sustainability in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Current practices in the U.S. health care industry drive climate change. This review summarizes the vast research on the negative health effects of the climate crisis on patients as relevant to obstetrics and gynecology. We further propose solutions to decarbonize operating rooms, labor and delivery units, and nurseries and neonatal intensive care units through evidence-based reduction in our single-use supply, energy, and water, as well as anesthetic gases and appropriate waste sorting.

Operating Room Recycling: Opportunities to Reduce Carbon Emissions Without Increases in Cost

BACKGROUND

The healthcare industry is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Within the hospital, operating rooms are responsible for the largest proportion of emissions due to high resource utilization and waste generation. Our aim was to generate estimates of greenhouse gas emissions avoided and cost implications following implementation of a recycling program across operating rooms at our freestanding children's hospital.

METHODS

Data were collected from three commonly performed pediatric surgical procedures: circumcision, laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, and laparoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. Five cases of each procedure were observed. Recyclable paper and plastic waste was weighed. Emission equivalencies were determined using the Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Institutional cost of waste disposal was $66.25 United States Dollars (USD)/ton for recyclable waste and $67.00 USD/ton for solid waste.

RESULTS

The proportion of recyclable waste ranged from 23.3% for circumcision to 29.5% for laparoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. The amount of waste redirected from landfill to a recycling stream could result in annual avoidance of 58,500 to 91,500 kg carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, or 6583 to 10,296 gallons of gasoline. Establishing a recycling program would not require additional cost and could lead to modest cost savings (range $15 to 24 USD/year).

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporation of recycling into operating rooms has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without increased cost. Clinicians and hospital administrators should consider operating room recycling programs as they work towards improved environmental stewardship.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level VI - evidence form a single descriptive or qualitative study.

What a Waste! The Impact of Unused Surgical Supplies in Hand Surgery and How We Can Improve

BACKGROUND

The US health care system is the second largest contributor of trash. Approximately 20% to 70% of waste is produced by operating rooms, and very few of this waste is recycled. The purpose of this study is to quantify the opened but unused disposable supplies and generate strategies to reduce disposable waste.

METHODS

A single-center prospective study to evaluate the cost of opened but unused single-use operating room supplies was completed by counting the number of wasted disposable products at the end of hand surgery cases. We used χ2 test, t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and simple linear regression to assess the associations between patient and case variables and the total cost of wasted items. Environmentally Extended Input Output Life Cycle Assessment methods were used to convert the dollar spent to kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e), a measure of greenhouse gas emissions.

RESULTS

Surgical and dressing items that were disposed of and not used during each case were recorded. We included 85 consecutive cases in the analysis from a single surgeon's practice. Higher cost from wasted items was associated with shorter operative time (P = .010). On average, 11.5 items were wasted per case (SD: 3.6 items), with a total of 981 items wasted over the 85 cases in the study period. Surgical sponges and blades were 2 of the most unused items. Wasted items amounted to a total of $2193.5 and 441 kg of CO2-e during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the excessive waste of unused disposable products during hand surgery cases and identifies ways of improvement.

Going green in gynecology: a call to action

The climate change crisis poses a central threat to public health. The health outcomes of this crisis are well known, but lesser known to medical professionals is the role that healthcare delivery plays in worsening this crisis. The United States healthcare system is responsible for producing 10% of the total greenhouse gases. The adverse health outcomes caused by the overall healthcare system emissions in the United States is estimated to be 470,000 disability-adjusted life years lost, which is commensurate with the 44,000 to 98,000 people who die in hospitals each year in the United States as a consequence of preventable medical errors. Factors that contribute to healthcare greenhouse gas emissions include emissions from our facilities and from the purchase, transport, and use of supplies and waste. In the purview of obstetrics and gynecology, providers should minimize their use of disposable supplies, replace single-use specula with stainless steel specula, and educate themselves and operating room staff about best waste disposal practices. In addition, they can use their individual and collective voice to advocate for sustainable energy and supply practices. A transformation in the way we supply and power our hospitals is needed, and providers should be early adopters of this transformational change. Physician buy-in is essential to decrease the carbon footprint of our care. This narrative is a call to action for obstetricians and gynecologists to reduce our carbon footprint as a public health measure to uphold the quality of care we provide to women.

Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Single-Use and Multi-Use Surgical Staplers with Staple Line Buttressing in Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery

PURPOSE

Operation rooms have a large environmental impact. Single-use staplers (SUS) are widely used surgical instruments that contribute to resource consumption and waste generation, whereas multi-use staplers (MUS) can greatly reduce the environmental impact of surgery. The staple lines are often reinforced with buttressing material to prevent leaks and bleeding. We explore current clinical practice and environmental concerns regarding stapling and buttressing, as well as the environmental impact of staple line buttressing in sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Furthermore, we extend this analysis by taking packaging material and the lithium in power supplies into consideration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey of bariatric surgeons was conducted to assess stapler and buttressing use in clinical practice. We deconstructed and analyzed the product and packaging composition of a commonly used SUS with separate staple line reinforcement (Echelon Flex™ with Echelon Endopath™, Ethicon) and MUS (Signia™ with Tri-Staple™ reinforced reloads, Medtronic), where the buttressing material was delivered separately or already incorporated in the reload cartridge, respectively. Both systems were compared regarding total waste generation, resource use (determined as total material requirement), and greenhouse gas emission caused by their lithium content.

RESULTS

60 mm cartridges were most frequently used in bariatric surgery, and 67% of surveyed surgeons applied staple line reinforcement. MUS with pre-attached buttressing resulted in a reduction of waste, material consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions compared to SUS with separate buttressing: they reduced product waste by 40% (SG and RYBG), packaging waste by 60% (SG) and 57% (RYGB), resource consumption by more than 90%, and greenhouse gas emissions related to the lithium in the batteries by 99.7%. Preloaded buttressing produced less waste than separate buttressing per stapler firing.

CONCLUSION

The environmental impact of surgery can be greatly reduced by using MUS with pre-attached buttressing rather than SUS with separate buttressing.

[Recycling of Disposable Surgical Instruments - Is It Worth It?]

The German healthcare sector is responsible for 5.2% of the country's greenhouse gas emissions. One contributing factor is the enormous amount of waste generated daily in German hospitals, making them the fifth largest waste producer in Germany. Despite the potential for recycling, a significant portion of hospital waste is incinerated, as mandated by current regulations. This results in high levels of noxious CO2 emissions and the loss of valuable resources. The goal of this project was to demonstrate the feasibility of recycling complex, contaminated disposable surgical instruments.The study included frequently used disposable surgical instruments that could potentially be recycled as electronic waste. The instruments were wipe-disinfected and sterilised internally within the hospital. After sterilisation, the devices could be classified as electronic waste in consultation with the environmental authorities and then machine-recycled externally by a waste disposal company. Sorting machines shredded and separated the instruments into individual fractions of cables, plastics, different metals, and circuit boards, which were further processed into secondary raw materials.In the first six months (09/2022-03/2023), 239 kg of material were recycled instead of being incinerated. This resulted in a reduction of 545 kg CO2e. The metal content was estimated as 50% of the total weight; 30% were recyclable plastics, resulting in an 80% recycling rate. The ongoing recycling costs were 1.90 €/kg after deducting revenues. Thus, recycling in this model was approximately 3.9 times as expensive as incineration. A survey of the operating theatre personnel found high satisfaction with the recycling project and a minimal additional workload of less than five minutes.We demonstrated that recycling of contaminated disposable surgical instruments is possible in coordination with government authorities. This approach avoids waste incineration and leads to a reduction in CO2-equivalent emissions. However, the higher costs of recycling and the requirement for in-house decontamination pose limitations on the implementation of such projects. To address this, it is necessary for lawmakers to reconsider current regulations and involve manufacturers in recycling costs to fully exploit the enormous recycling potential.

Sustainable orthopaedic surgery: Initiatives to improve our environmental, social and economic impact

In response to appeals from the WHO and The Lancet, a collaborative statement from over 200 medical journals was published in September 2021, advising international governments to combat the "catastrophic harm to health" from climate change. Healthcare, specifically surgery, constitutes a major contributor to environmental harm that remains unaddressed. This article provides practical guidance that can be instituted at a departmental, hospital and national level to institute transformative, sustainable efforts into practice. We also aim to provoke healthcare leaders to discuss policy-making with respect to this issue and highlight the necessity for sustainability to become a core domain of quality improvement. The average orthopaedic service produces 60% more waste than any other surgical specialty. Fortunately, simple measures such as a comprehensive education programme can decrease waste disposal costs by 20-fold. Other simple and effective "green" measures include integrating carbon literacy into surgical training, prioritising regional anaesthesia and conducting recycling audits. Furthermore, industry must take accountability and be incentivised to limit the use of single-item packaging and single-use items. National policymakers should consider the benefits of reusable implants, reusable surgical drapes and refurbishing crutches as these are proven cost and climate-effective interventions. It is crucial to establish a local sustainability committee to maintain these interventions and to bridge the gap between clinicians, industry and policymakers.

A race to net zero-early lessons from healthcare's decarbonization marathon

Climate change poses a threat to healthcare systems; at the same time, healthcare systems contribute to a worsening climate. Climate-induced disasters are predicted to increase both the demand for healthcare services while also posing a threat to the integrity of healthcare systems' infrastructures and supply chains. Many healthcare organizations have taken initiatives to prepare for such disasters through implementing carbon emission-reduction practices and infrastructure reinforcement, through globally recognized frameworks and strategies known as Scopes 1, 2, and 3, and decarbonization. We explored the efforts of these early adopters to understand how they are thinking about and addressing climate change's impacts on healthcare. Through a process of reviewing the peer-reviewed literature, publicly available published documents, annual sustainability reports, conference presentations, and participation in a national decarbonization collaborative, we (1) provide a diverse set of examples showcasing the variety of ways healthcare systems are responding; (2) identify a set of emergent key themes to implementing decarbonization practices, such as the role of an organizational culture of iterative improvement and building systems of cross-organizational collaboration; and (3) synthesize the identifiable set of driving factors for long-term sustainability of these decarbonization efforts.

Hospital sustainability indicators and reduction of socio-environmental impacts: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize knowledge about hospital sustainability indicators and evidence of reduced socio-environmental impact.

METHOD

Literature scoping review using Pubmed, Science Direct, Scielo and Lilacs databases. Studies in a time frame of 10 years, addressing hospital sustainability indicators and evidence of reduced socio-environmental impact published in any language were included.

RESULTS

A total of 28 articles were included, most were applied research, published in 2012, in English. Studies showed ways to save water and energy, as well as ways to monitor and mitigate the impact of activities related to effluents, waste and emissions. All studies had nursing work directly or indirectly involved in hospital sustainability.

CONCLUSION

The possibilities of generating less impact on the environment and increasing the economy/efficiency of a hospital are countless. The particularities of each hospital must be taken into account and workers, especially nurses, should be involved.

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

BACKGROUND

Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres.

METHODS

This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low-middle-income countries.

RESULTS

In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of 'single-use' consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low-middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia.

CONCLUSION

This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high- and low-middle-income countries.

Methods and evaluation metrics for reducing material waste in the operating room: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Operating rooms contribute up to 70% of total hospital waste. Although multiple studies have demonstrated reduced waste through targeted interventions, few examine processes. This scoping review highlights methods of study design, outcome assessment, and sustainability practices of operating room waste reduction strategies employed by surgeons.

METHODS

Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were screened for operating room-specific waste-reduction interventions. Waste was defined as hazardous and non-hazardous disposable material and energy consumption. Study-specific elements were tabulated by study design, evaluation metrics, strengths, limitations, and barriers to implementation in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 38 articles were analyzed. Among them, 74% of studies had pre- versus postintervention designs, and 21% used quality improvement instruments. No studies used an implementation framework. The vast majority (92%) of studies measured cost as an outcome, whereas others included disposable waste by weight, hospital energy consumption, and stakeholder perspectives. The most common intervention was instrument tray optimization. Common barriers to implementation included lack of stakeholder buy-in, knowledge gaps, data capture, additional staff time, need for hospital or federal policies, and funding. Intervention sustainability was discussed in few studies (23%) and included regular waste audits, hospital policy change, and educational initiatives. Common methodologic limitations included limited outcome evaluation, narrow scope of intervention, and inability to capture indirect costs.

CONCLUSION

Appraisal of quality improvement and implementation methods are critical for developing sustainable interventions for reducing operating room waste. Universal evaluation metrics and methodologies may aid in both quantifying the impact of waste reduction initiatives and understanding their implementation in clinical practice.

Interventions for sustainable surgery: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate interventions designed to improve the sustainability of surgical practice with respect to their environmental and financial impact.

BACKGROUND

Surgery contributes significantly to emissions attributed to healthcare due to its high resource and energy use. Several interventions across the operative pathway have, therefore, been trialed to minimize this impact. Few comparisons of the environmental and financial effects of these interventions exist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of studies published up to 2nd February 2022 describing interventions to increase surgical sustainability was undertaken. Articles regarding the environmental impact of only anesthetic agents were excluded. Data regarding environmental and financial outcomes were extracted with a quality assessment completed dependent upon the study design.

RESULTS

In all, 1162 articles were retrieved, of which 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty-five interventions were described, which were categorized into five domains: 'reduce and rationalize', 'reusable equipment and textiles', 'recycling and waste segregation', 'anesthetic alternatives', and 'other'. Eleven of the 21 studies examined reusable devices; those demonstrating a benefit reported 40-66% lower emissions than with single-use alternatives. In studies not showing a lower carbon footprint, the reduction in manufacturing emissions was offset by the high environmental impact of local fossil fuel-based energy required for sterilization. The per use monetary cost of reusable equipment was 47-83% of the single-use equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

A narrow repertoire of interventions to improve the environmental sustainability of surgery has been trialed. The majority focuses on reusable equipment. Emissions and cost data are limited, with longitudinal impacts rarely investigated. Real-world appraisals will facilitate implementation, as will an understanding of how sustainability impacts surgical decision-making.

Reducing Disposable Surgical Items: Decreasing Environmental Impact and Costs at a Children's Hospital, A Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

United States landfill waste generated in the operating room (OR) is estimated to be three billion tons per year. The goal of this study was to analyze the environmental and fiscal impact of right-sizing surgical supplies at a medium-sized children's hospital using lean methodology to reduce physical waste generated in the operating room.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary task force was created to reduce waste in the OR of an academic children's hospital. A single-center case study, proof-of-concept, and scalability analysis of operative waste reduction was performed. Surgical packs were identified as a target. Pack utilization was monitored during an initial pilot analysis for 12 d then followed by a focused 3-week period, capturing all unused items by participating surgical services. Items discarded in more than 85% of cases were excluded in subsequent preformed packs.

RESULTS

Pilot review identified 46 items in 113 procedures for removal from surgical packs. Subsequent 3-week analysis focusing on two surgical services, and 359 procedures identified a potential $1,111.88 savings with elimination of minimally used items. Over 1 y, removal of all minimally used items from seven surgical services diverted two tons of plastic landfill waste, saved $27,503 in surgical pack acquisition-costs, and prevented the theoretical loss of $13,824 in wasted supplies. Additional purchasing analysis has resulted in another $70,000 of savings through supply chain streamlining. Application of this process nationally could prevent >6000 tons of waste in the United States per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of a simple iterative process to reduce waste in the OR can result in substantial waste diversion and cost savings. Broad adoption of such a process to reduce OR waste could greatly reduce the environmental impact of surgical care.

Climate-smart Actions in the Operating Theatre for Improving Sustainability Practices: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Surgical activity contributes to global warming though the production of greenhouse gases and consumption of resources. To date, no clinical practice guidelines have been made to promote and implement climate-smart actions.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the available actions that could limit CO₂ emission in the operating room (OR) and their potential benefits upon the environment, whilst preserving quality of care.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched from January 1, 1990 to April 2021. We included studies assessing carbon footprint (CF) in the OR and articles detailing actions that limit or reduce CF.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. We identified six core climate-smart actions: (1) waste reduction by segregation; (2) waste reduction by recycling, reuse, and reprocessing; (3) sterilisation; (4) anaesthesia gas management; and (5) improvement of energy use. Quantitative analysis regarding the CF was not possible due to the lack of homogeneous data. For climate-smart actions, the analysis was limited by discrepancies in study scope and in the methodology of CO₂ emission calculation. Improvement of education and awareness was found to have an important impact on waste segregation and reduction. Waste management is the area where health care workers could have the strongest impact, whereas the main field to reduce CF in the OR was found to be energy consumption.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides arguments for many climate-smart actions that could be implemented in our daily practice. Improving awareness and education are important to act collectively in a sustainable way. Further studies are mandatory to assess the impact of these climate-smart actions in the OR.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We performed a systematic review of the available scientific literature to reference all the climate-smart actions proposed to improve the sustainability of surgical activities. Waste segregation, waste reduction and recycling, reuse and reprocessing, sterilisation, anaesthesia gas changes, and improvement of energy use in the operating room were found to be the main areas of research. There is still a long way to go to homogenise and improve the quality of our climate-smart actions.

Becoming a Sustainable Academic Surgeon

INTRODUCTION

Health care facilities represent a significant source of pollution, contributing to the growing problems associated with global warming. The resulting climate change impacts our health through worsening air and water quality, diminished access to nutritious food, and safe shelter.

METHODS

We outline here the not only the role of the surgeon in contributing to climate change, but also ways in which to minimize one's carbon footprint.

RESULTS

Surgeons are leaders within healthcare systems. Adopting environmentally conscious practices can reduce solid waste, energy usage, and carbon emissions. Practices outside of the clinical setting can also incorporate sustainability, including the use of virtual recruitment and educational programs, as well as thoughtful and conscientious travel practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Academic surgery combines clinical practice with an element of leadership, at all levels. Our recognition and action to reduce wasteful practices can help leave a better earth for generations to come.

Environmental Impact and Cost Savings of Operating Room Quality Improvement Initiatives: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Operating rooms are major contributors to a hospital's carbon footprint due to the large volumes of resources consumed and waste produced. The objective of this study was to identify quality improvement initiatives that aimed to reduce the environmental impact of the operating room while decreasing costs.

STUDY DESIGN

A literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Google Scholar and included broad terms for "operating room," "costs," and "environment" or "sustainability." The "triple bottom line" framework, which considers the environmental, financial, and social impacts of interventions to guide decision making, was used to inform data extraction. The studies were then categorized using the 5 "Rs" of sustainability-refuse, reduce, reuse, repurpose, and recycle-and the impacts were discussed using the triple bottom line framework.

RESULTS

A total of 23 unique quality improvement initiatives describing 28 interventions were included. Interventions were categorized as "refuse" (n = 11; 39.3%), "reduce" (n = 8; 28.6%), "reuse" (n = 3; 10.7%), and "recycle" (n = 6; 21.4%). While methods of measuring environmental impact and cost savings varied greatly among studies, potential annual cost savings ranged from $873 (intervention: education on diverting recyclable materials from sharps containers; environmental impact: 11.4 kg sharps waste diverted per month) to $694,141 (intervention: education to reduce regulated medical waste; environmental impact: 30% reduction in regulated medical waste).

CONCLUSIONS

Quality improvement initiatives that reduce both cost and environmental impact have been successfully implemented across a variety of centers both nationally and globally. Surgeons, healthcare practitioners, and administrators interested in environmental stewardship and working toward a culture of sustainability may consider similar interventions in their institutions.

The Environmental Impact of Orthopaedic Surgery

➤

There are a growing number of opportunities within the field of orthopaedic surgery to address climate change and investigate ways to promote sustainability.

➤

Orthopaedic surgeons can take a proactive role in addressing climate change and its impacts within the areas of operating-room waste, carbon emissions from transportation and implant manufacturing, anesthetic gases, and water usage.

➤

Future studies are needed to further these initiatives on quantifying and decreasing environmental impact and furthering sustainable use of our resources.

Sustainability of dermatological offices and clinics: challenges and potential solutions

Ongoing high consumption of resources results in exceeding the planetary boundaries. Modern healthcare systems contribute to this problem. To address this issue, this article provides an overview of various aspects of sustainable actions in medical offices and clinics that can also be applied to dermatology. Specific fields of action include energy consumption, structural measures, traffic and mobility, organization including digitalization as well as personnel and evaluation. Moreover, we discuss specific topics such as hygiene and cleansing, dermatosurgery and prescription practices. External treatments and cosmetics are discussed separately as dermatological peculiarities. Finally, we provide information on established initiatives for more sustainable health care in Germany. We aim to encourage critical reappraisal of currently established practices and to stimulate the implementation of sustainable measures.

Saving Money and Reducing Waste With a Tailored Hand Surgery Kit

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is growing interest in containing cost and decreasing waste in the operating room. As part of a quality improvement initiative, we redesigned the supply kit used for 2 common surgical procedures (carpal tunnel release and trigger finger release) performed under local anesthesia.

METHODS

A hand surgeon, a medical student, and an operating room nurse examined each item that would be necessary for performing carpal tunnel release and trigger finger release. A new disposable supply kit was formulated on the basis of their recommendations and was implemented over a 7-month period. Cost savings and waste avoidance were calculated.

RESULTS

The streamlined kit ($43.40) produced a 53% cost savings relative to the standard hand pack ($92.83) per case. The local pack (2.896 kg) was 41% lighter than the standard pack (4.938 kg), translating to significant waste avoidance. The local hand pack was used for 46 cases from September 2020 to April 2021, saving a total of $2246.78 and avoiding 94 kg of waste. There have been no noted interruptions in delivery of surgical care.

CONCLUSION

Our redesign of the local hand pack led to substantial cost savings and waste avoidance. We believe there are many opportunities for surgical teams to use similar strategies to decrease cost and environmental waste.

Sustainability in interventional radiology: are we doing enough to save the environment?

Background

Healthcare waste contributes substantially to the world’s carbon footprint. Our aims are to review the current knowledge of Interventional Radiology (IR) waste generation and ways of reducing waste in practice, to quantify the environmental and financial impact of waste generated and address green initiatives to improve IR waste management.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted in July 2022 using the Medline and Embase literature databases. The scope of the search included the field of IR as well as operating theatre literature, where relevant to IR practice.

Results

One-hundred articles were reviewed and 68 studies met the inclusion criteria. Greening initiatives include reducing, reusing and recycling waste, as well as strict waste segregation. Interventional radiologists can engage with suppliers to reformulate procedure packs to minimize unnecessary items and packaging. Opened but unused equipment can be prevented if there is better communication within the team and increased staff awareness of wasted equipment cost. Incentives to use soon-to-expire equipment can be offered. Power consumption can be reduced by powering down operating room lights and workstations when not in use, changing to Light Emitting Diode (LED) and motion sensor lightings. Surgical hand wash can be replaced with alcohol-based hand rubs to reduce water usage. Common barriers to improving waste management include the lack of leadership, misconceptions regarding infectious risk, lack of data, concerns about increased workload, negative staff attitudes and resistance to change. Education remains a top priority to engage all staff in sustainable healthcare practices.

Conclusion

Interventional radiologists have a crucial role to play in improving healthcare sustainability. By implementing small, iterative changes to our practice, financial savings, greater efficiency and improved environmental sustainability can be achieved.

Improving perioperative management of surgical sets for trauma surgeries: the 4S approach

Background

The perioperative management of the surgical instruments and implants that comprise sets for trauma surgeries has been identified as a complex and resource-intensive activity due to non-standardized inventories, redundant surgical instruments and unnecessary sterilization cycles. The 4S Intelligent Trauma Care program aims to improve perioperative management and thereby reduce environmental impact by utilizing standardized inventories, a sterile implant portfolio, a barcode that enables a digital safety certification, and a digitized restocking service.

Objective

The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of the introduction of the 4S program for the management of surgical sets in open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) trauma surgeries.

Methods

This was a single-center, quality improvement study of ORIF trauma surgeries, comparing the current practice (30 procedures) to the procedure following the introduction of the 4S program (30 procedures). The primary outcome was the proportion of procedures requiring only one sterilization cycle. Secondary outcomes were the number of sterilization cycles per procedure, set processing time across departments, total set processing costs, number of missing or damaged implants, number of cleaning cycles per procedure, time taken to assemble containers for sterilization, number of containers entering the autoclave per procedure, environmental impact, number of baskets entering the cleaning machine per procedure, and staff satisfaction.

Results

Introduction of the 4S program resulted in a reduction in the mean number of sterilization cycles required from 2.1 to 1.0 (p < 0.001). In the current practice, only 30.0% of procedure sets were sterilized within one cycle, compared to 100.0% following introduction of the 4S program (p < 0.001). A reduction in the mean set processing time of 24.1% in the OR and 35.3% in the sterilization department was observed. Mean set processing costs for the current practice were €81.23, compared to €50.30 following introduction of the 4S program. Furthermore, following the introduction of the 4S program, procedures were associated with significant reductions in water and electricity usage, and increased staff satisfaction.

Conclusions

This quality improvement study demonstrates the substantial time and cost savings, positive environmental impact and staff satisfaction that could be achieved by streamlining surgical set management through the 4S program. To our knowledge, this is the first study of this type and our findings may be instructive to other hospitals and surgical specialties.

The carbon footprint of the operating room related to infection prevention measures: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Infection prevention measures are widely used in operating rooms (ORs). However, the extent to which they are at odds with ambitions to reduce the health sector's carbon footprint remains unclear.

AIM

To synthesize the evidence base for the carbon footprint of commonly used infection prevention measures in the OR, namely medical devices and instruments, surgical attire and air treatment systems.

METHODS

A scoping review of the international scientific literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The search was performed in PubMed and Google Scholar. Articles published between 2010 and June 2021 on infection prevention measures, their impact on the health sector's carbon footprint, and risk for surgical site infections (SSIs) were included.

FINDINGS

Although hospitals strive to reduce their carbon footprint, many infection prevention measures result in increased emissions. Evidence suggests that the use of disposable items instead of reusable items generally increases the carbon footprint, depending on sources of electricity. Controversy exists regarding the correlation between air treatment systems, contamination and the incidence of SSIs. The literature indicates that new air treatment systems consume more energy and do not necessarily reduce SSIs compared with conventional systems.

CONCLUSION

Infection prevention measures in ORs can be at odds with sustainability. The use of new air treatment systems and disposable items generally leads to significant greenhouse gas emissions, and does not necessarily reduce the incidence of SSIs. Alternative infection prevention measures with less environmental impact are available. Implementation could be facilitated by embracing environmental impact as an additional dimension of quality of care, which should change current risk-based approaches for the prevention of SSIs.

Environmental sustainability in orthopaedic surgery

Aims

In the UK, the NHS generates an estimated 25 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (4% to 5% of the nation’s total carbon emissions) and produces over 500,000 tonnes of waste annually. There is limited evidence demonstrating the principles of sustainability and its benefits within orthopaedic surgery. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery and the environmentally sustainable initiatives undertaken to address this. The secondary aim of this study was to describe the barriers to making sustainable changes within orthopaedic surgery.

Methods

A literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines through EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed libraries using two domains of terms: “orthopaedic surgery” and “environmental sustainability”.

Results

A total of 13 studies were included in the final analysis. All papers studied the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery in one of three areas: waste management, resource consumption, and carbon emissions. Waste segregation was a prevalent issue and described by nine studies, with up to 74.4% of hazardous waste being generated. Of this, six studies reported recycling waste and up to 43.9% of waste per procedure was recyclable. Large joint arthroplasties generated the highest amount of recyclable waste per procedure. Three studies investigated carbon emissions from intraoperative consumables, sterilization methods, and through the use of telemedicine. One study investigated water wastage and demonstrated that simple changes to practice can reduce water consumption by up to 63%. The two most common barriers to implementing environmentally sustainable changes identified across the studies was a lack of appropriate infrastructure and lack of education and training.

Conclusion

Environmental sustainability in orthopaedic surgery is a growing area with a wide potential for meaningful change. Further research to cumulatively study the carbon footprint of orthopaedic surgery and the wider impact of environmentally sustainable changes is necessary.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):628–640.

The SLIM Study: Economic, Energy, and Waste Savings Through Lowering of Instrumentation Mass in Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Nearly 700,000 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are annually performed in North America, costing the healthcare system >$15 billion and creating over 5 million tons of waste. This study aims to (1) assess satisfaction of current THA setup; (2) determine economic cost, energy cost, and waste cost of current setup and apply lean methodology to improve efficiency; and (3) design and test "Savings through Lowering of Instrumentation Mass (SLIM) setup" based on lean principles and its ability to be safely implemented into practice.

METHODS

A Needs Assessment Survey was performed. After review and surgeon input, the "SLIM" set was designed, significantly reducing redundancy. Eighty patients were randomized to either Standard or SLIM setup. Operating room time, blood loss, perioperative adverse events and complications, cost/case, instrument weight (kg/case), total waste (kg/case), case setup time, and number of times and number of extra trays required were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The SLIM setup was associated with the following savings: Cost = -$408.19/case; Energy = -7.16 kWh/case; Waste = -1.61 kg/case; Trays = -6 (758 kg/case). No differences in operating room time, blood loss, and complication rate were detected (P > .05) between groups. Setup time was significantly shorter with SLIM (P < .05) and extra instrumentation was opened in <5% of cases.

CONCLUSION

A more "minimalist approach" to THA can be safely implemented. The SLIM setup is efficient and has been openly accepted by our allied staff. Such setup can lead to 1,610 kg reduction in waste, 7,160 kWh, and $408,190 in savings per 1,000 THAs performed.

The environmental impact of surgery: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Climate change is a significant public health threat. Health care comprises 10% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, where surgery is especially resource intensive. We did a systematic review to assess and summarize the published evidence of the environmental impact of surgery.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and GreenFILE databases for publications that report any environmental impact measure by all surgical subspecialties, including anesthesia. Inclusion criteria were published in English, original research, and passed peer review. Because data were heterogeneous and the aim was broad, we conducted a qualitative summary of data. Where possible, we compare impact measures.

RESULTS

In the study, 167 articles were identified by our search strategy and reviewed, of which 55 studies met criteria. Eight were about anesthesia, 27 about operating room waste, and 6 were life cycle assessments. Other topics include carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions. Nine papers fell into 2 or more categories. Overall, the operating room is a significant source of emissions and waste. Using anesthetic gases with low global warming potential reduces operating room emissions without compromising patient safety. Operating room waste is often disposed of improperly, often due to convenience or knowledge gaps. There are environmental benefits to replacing disposable materials with reusable equivalents, and to proper recycling. Surgeons can help implement these changes at their institution.

CONCLUSION

Although there is a clear need to lower the carbon footprint of surgery, the quality of research with which to inform protocol changes is deficient overall. Our attempt to quantify surgery's carbon footprint yielded heterogeneous data and few standardized, actionable recommendations. However, this data serves as a starting point for important future initiatives to decrease the environmental impact of surgery.

Variability in personal protective equipment in cross-sectional interventional abdominal radiology practices

Purpose

To determine institutional practice requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE) in cross-sectional interventional radiology (CSIR) procedures among a variety of radiology practices in the USA and Canada.

Methods

Members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) CSIR Emerging Technology Commission (ETC) were sent an eight-question survey about what PPE they were required to use during common CSIR procedures: paracentesis, thoracentesis, thyroid fine needle aspiration (FNA), superficial lymph node biopsy, deep lymph node biopsy, solid organ biopsy, and ablation. Types of PPE evaluated were sterile gloves, surgical masks, gowns, surgical hats, eye shields, foot covers, and scrubs.

Results

26/38 surveys were completed by respondents at 20/22 (91%) institutions. The most common PPE was sterile gloves, required by 20/20 (100%) institutions for every procedure. The second most common PPE was masks, required by 14/20 (70%) institutions for superficial and deep procedures and 12/12 (100%) institutions for ablation. Scrubs, sterile gowns, eye shields, and surgical hats were required at nearly all institutions for ablation, whereas approximately half of institutions required their use for deep lymph node and solid organ biopsy. Compared with other types of PPE, required mask and eye shield use showed the greatest increase during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Conclusion

PPE use during common cross-sectional procedures is widely variable. Given the environmental and financial impact and lack of consensus practice, further studies examining the appropriate level of PPE are needed.

Graphical abstract

[Climate change: how surgery contributes to global warming]

BACKGROUND

Surgery as an important part of the healthcare sector contributes to environmental pollution and therefore to the climate crisis. The aim of this review is to create an overview of the current data situation and possibilities for improvement.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE using the following five terms: "carbon footprint and surgery", "climate change and surgery", "waste and surgery" and "greening the operating room" focusing on energy, waste, water and anesthesia.

RESULTS

The greatest part of emissions in surgery is generated by the use of energy. The operating rooms (OR) need 3-6 times more energy than the other hospital rooms. Of the total hospital waste 20-30% is produced during operations, which is particularly due to the increasing use of disposable articles and 50-90% of waste classified as hazardous is incorrectly sorted. The disposal of this waste is not only more environmentally harmful but also much more expensive. The processing of surgical items by autoclaving consumes large amounts of water. Modern sterilization methods, for example using plasma could be future alternatives. Up to 20% of volatile nonmetabolized anesthetic agents are vented into the stratosphere and destroy the ozone layer. Intravenous anesthetic drugs should be used whenever possible instead. The choice of operating method can also contribute to the environmental impact of an operation.

CONCLUSION

The surgical disciplines are a relevant producer of environmental pollutants. Through diverse interdisciplinary approaches surgery can also contribute to protecting the environment.

Evaluating the Waste Prevention Potential of a Multi- versus Single-Use Surgical Stapler

Purpose

Within the hospital, surgery is recognized as a resource-intensive activity that disproportionately generates large volumes of healthcare waste. Single-use, disposable medical supplies contribute substantially to this problem, and more broadly to the depletion of scarce resources. Given that many surgical procedures utilize surgical stapling techniques, this study uses surgical stapling systems as functional units for evaluating the waste prevention potential of switching from single-use systems (SUSs) to multi-use systems (MUSs).

Materials and Methods

Two frequently used surgical stapling systems, Ethicon’s SUS: ECHELON FLEX™ and Medtronic’s MUS: Signia™ Stapling Technology, were mechanically deconstructed to their individual raw material components to calculate the composition of each system. Total waste as well as extended resource use (the total material requirement [TMR]) were then calculated for three different surgical procedures; laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic gastric bypass, and video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) lobectomy. The differences in outcomes for SUSs versus MUSs were then calculated.

Results

For each surgical procedure considered, switching from a SUS to a MUS led to a reduction in total waste accumulated per procedure and TMR. Reductions in waste were 40% (sleeve gastrectomy), 70% (gastric bypass), and 62% (VATS lobectomy). The TMR reductions were higher, at 92% (sleeve gastrectomy), 96% (gastric bypass), and 95% (VATS lobectomy). Both waste and TMR reduction were realized with the MUS system as long as the reusable parts were used more than four times. This was true for all analyzed surgical procedures.

Conclusion

Switching from a SUS to MUS facilitates a reduction in total surgical waste and TMR for sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and VATS lobectomy surgical procedures.

Pharmaceutical and Supply Waste in Oculofacial Plastic Surgery at a Hospital-Based Outpatient Surgery Center

PURPOSE

To investigate the financial and environmental waste burden of unused disposable surgical supplies and pharmaceutical products in oculofacial plastic surgery at a hospital-based outpatient surgery center.

METHODS

This descriptive study was performed at a single academic hospital-based outpatient surgery center. Unused pharmaceuticals and disposable surgical materials were recorded for each of 34 consecutive oculofacial plastic surgeries performed by the same surgical team. Pharmaceutical products were grouped as local anesthetic (tetracaine, bupivacaine, lidocaine, and sodium bicarbonate), intraoperative (basic saline solution, methylene blue, and oxymetazoline hydrochloride), or antiseptic/antimicrobial (erythromycin ointment and hydrogen peroxide). Percentage of unused pharmaceutical product and disposable surgical material were calculated and extrapolated to direct costs to the institution and greenhouse gas emissions.

RESULTS

The mean percentage of disposable surgical supply waste per case was 11.6% ($29.32). The mean percentage of pharmaceutical waste was 96.1% ($271.84) for local anesthetic, 71.0% ($163.47) for intraoperative medications, and 26.7% ($2.19) for antiseptic medication. The mean emissions per surgical case for unused disposable surgical equipment and unused pharmaceutical product were 10 and 103 kg of carbon equivalent gases (kg CO2-e), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical supply waste was nominal, but pharmaceutical waste was considerable in this single hospital-based outpatient surgery center study. There may exist opportunities for quality improvement in waste, especially pharmacologic burden, in oculofacial plastic surgery.

Sustainability Initiatives in the Operating Room

BACKGROUND

Operating rooms (ORs) contribute up to 30% of a hospital's waste, are very resource-intensive, and thus provide an opportunity for improvement.

METHODS

A narrative review was conducted, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ProQuest databases. The study included 78 of the 108 published articles.

RESULTS

The researchers identified and categorized articles according to the following major themes: Committee and Leadership; Waste Reduction; Segregating OR waste; Minimizing unnecessary devices and packaging; Reducing energy consumption; Choosing anesthetic gases; Education; Reducing water consumption; Different surgical venues; Donating medical supplies. Formation of an OR committee or a hospital Green Team dedicated to environmentally sustainable initiatives can significantly improve health care's impact on the environment while saving money. Changes in supply chain with preferences for reusable devices, effective recycling, repurposing instruments, and donating items can all be effective means of diverting waste away from landfills. Reducing unnecessary packaging and instruments would eliminate excess in the waste stream. Curtailing energy and water usage results in cost and environmental savings. Surgical venue (inpatient vs. outpatient surgical center) can also contribute to waste. Transitioning away from certain inhaled anesthetics can minimize greenhouse gas impact. Education to all levels in the health care system is important to drive change and maintain change.

CONCLUSION

Optimizing efficiency and decreasing waste generation can have a positive impact on the environment and can be accompanied by cost reduction. Because the field of sustainability in health care is young but burgeoning, increased research is needed to support evidence-based approaches.

The Environmental Impact of Interventional Radiology: An Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from an Academic Interventional Radiology Practice

PURPOSE

To calculate the volume of greenhouse gases (GHGs) generated by a hospital-based interventional radiology (IR) department.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to calculate GHGs emitted by an IR department at a tertiary care academic medical center. The volume of waste generated, amount of disposable supplies and linens used, and the operating times of electrical equipment were recorded for procedures performed between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on 5 consecutive weekdays. LCA was then performed using purchasing data, plug loads for electrical hardware, data from temperature control units, and estimates of emissions related to travel in the area surrounding the medical center.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight procedures were performed on 97 patients. The most commonly performed procedures were drainages (30), placement and removal of venous access (21), and computed tomography-guided biopsies (13). Approximately 23,500 kg CO₂e were emitted during the study. Sources of CO₂ emissions in descending order were related to indoor climate control (11,600 kg CO₂e), production and transportation of disposable surgical items (9,640 kg CO₂e), electricity plug load for equipment and lighting (1,060 kg CO₂e), staff transportation (524 kg CO₂e), waste disposal (426 kg CO₂e), production, laundering, and disposal of linens (279 kg CO₂e), and gas anesthetics (19.3 kg CO₂e).

CONCLUSIONS

The practice of IR generates substantial GHG volumes, a majority of which come from energy used to maintain climate control, followed by emissions related to single-use surgical supplies. Efforts to reduce the environmental impact of IR may be focused accordingly.

Design Opportunities to Reduce Waste in Operating Rooms

While taking care of the population’s health, hospitals generate mountains of waste, which in turn causes a hazard to the environment of the population. The operating room is responsible for a disproportionately big amount of hospital waste. This research aims to investigate waste creation in the operating room in order to identify design opportunities to support waste reduction according to the circular economy. Eight observations and five expert interviews were conducted in a large sized hospital. The hospital’s waste infrastructure, management, and sterilization department were mapped out. Findings are that washable towels and operation instruments are reused; paper, cardboard, and specific fabric are being recycled; and (non-)hazardous medical waste is being incinerated. Observation results and literature findings are largely comparable, stating that covering sheets of the operation bed, sterile clothing, sterile packaging, and department-specific products are as well the most used and discarded. The research also identified two waste hotspots: the logistical packaging (tertiary, secondary, and primary) of products and incorrect sorting between hazardous and non-hazardous medical waste. Design opportunities include optimization of recycling and increased use of reusables. Reuse is the preferred method, more specifically by exploring the possibilities of reuse of textiles, consumables, and packaging.

Waste management in an Italian Hospital's operating theatres: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Each day operating theatres produce lots of waste. The wrong segregation represents both an environmental and economic problem, which is reflected in increased disposal cost and in a loss of resources.

AIM

To examine waste segregation by medical and nonmedical healthcare personnel in an Italian hospital's operating theatres.

METHODS

We used an observational tool, according to the local regulations and validated by a panel of experts.

RESULT

Fifty-seven percent of waste were disposed of incorrectly, of these 71% could have been recycled and 1% recovered. The preoperative phase had the greatest production of waste (48%) and the highest percentage of incorrect differentiation (72%). Sixty-six percent of waste handled as "undifferentiated" could have been recycled. Waste managed as hazardous that could have been recycled, reused or otherwise segregated stood at 54%. Hazardous waste was managed incorrectly in 5% of the disposals.

CONCLUSION

The lack of a variety of bins for waste segregation and improper classification by personnel appear to be the cause of the incorrect segregation, which should be error free.

Switching off for future-Cost estimate and a simple approach to improving the ecological footprint of radiological departments

Purpose

Besides diagnostic imaging devices, in particular computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), numerous reading workstations contribute to the high energy consumption of radiological departments. It was investigated whether switching off workstations after core working hours can relevantly lower energy consumption considering both ecological and economical aspects.

Methods

Besides calculating different theoretical energy consumption scenarios, we measured power consumption of 3 workstations in our department over a 6-month period under routine working conditions and another 6-month period during which users were asked to switch off workstations after work. Staff costs arising from restarting workstations manually were calculated.

Results

Our approach to switching off workstations after core working hours reduced energy consumption by about 5.6 %, corresponding to an extrapolated saving of 3.2 tons in carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and 2100.70 USD/year in electricity costs for 227 workstations. Theoretical calculations indicate that consistent automatic shutdown after core working hours could result in a potential total reduction of energy consumption of 38.6 %, equaling 22.2 tons of CO₂ and 14,388.28 USD/year. However, staff costs resulting from waiting times after manually restarting workstations would amount to 36,280.02 USD/year.

Conclusions

Switching off workstations after core working hours can considerably reduce energy consumption and costs, but varies with user adherence. Staff costs caused by waiting time after manually starting up workstations outweigh energy savings by far. Therefore, an energy-saving plan with automated shutdown/restart besides enabling an energy-saving mode would be the most effective way of saving both energy and costs.

A critical analysis of the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy and ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies

The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic on the 11th of March 2020, but the world is still reeling from its aftermath. Originating from China, cases quickly spread across the globe, prompting the implementation of stringent measures by world governments in efforts to isolate cases and limit the transmission rate of the virus. These measures have however shattered the core sustaining pillars of the modern world economies as global trade and cooperation succumbed to nationalist focus and competition for scarce supplies. Against this backdrop, this paper presents a critical review of the catalogue of negative and positive impacts of the pandemic and proffers perspectives on how it can be leveraged to steer towards a better, more resilient low-carbon economy. The paper diagnosed the danger of relying on pandemic-driven benefits to achieving sustainable development goals and emphasizes a need for a decisive, fundamental structural change to the dynamics of how we live. It argues for a rethink of the present global economic growth model, shaped by a linear economy system and sustained by profiteering and energy-gulping manufacturing processes, in favour of a more sustainable model recalibrated on circular economy (CE) framework. Building on evidence in support of CE as a vehicle for balancing the complex equation of accomplishing profit with minimal environmental harms, the paper outlines concrete sector-specific recommendations on CE-related solutions as a catalyst for the global economic growth and development in a resilient post-COVID-19 world.