Beyond green surgery, green surgical innovation and research

A systematic review comparing the safety, cost and carbon footprint of disposable and reusable laparoscopic devices

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this systematic review of the literature is to compare a selection of currently utilized disposable and reusable laparoscopic medical devices in terms of safety (1st criteria), cost and carbon footprint.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search was carried out on electronic databases for articles published up until 6 May 2022. The eligible works were prospective (randomized or not) or retrospective clinical or medical-economic comparative studies having compared disposable scissors, trocars, and mechanical endoscopic staplers to the same instruments in reusable. Two different independent examiners extracted the relevant data.

RESULTS

Among the 2882 articles found, 156 abstracts were retained for examination. After comprehensive analysis concerning the safety and effectiveness of the instruments, we included four articles. A study on trocars highlighted increased vascular complications with disposable instruments, and another study found more perioperative incidents with a hybrid stapler as opposed to a disposable stapler. As regards cost analysis, we included 11 studies, all of which showed significantly higher costs with disposable instruments. The results of the one study on carbon footprints showed that hybrid instruments leave four times less of a carbon footprint than disposable instruments.

CONCLUSION

The literature on the theme remains extremely limited. Our review demonstrated that from a medical and economic standpoint, reusable medical instruments, particularly trocars, presented appreciable advantages. While there exist few data on the ecological impact, those that do exist are unmistakably favorable to reusable instruments.

Surgery, innovation, research and sustainable development

In the healthcare sector, surgery (especially in the operating theatre) is responsible for emission of greenhouse gases, which is a source of global warming. The goal of this largely quantitative assessment is to address three questions on carbon footprint associated with surgery, the role of primary and secondary prevention prior to surgical procedures, and incorporation of the carbon footprint into judgment criteria in research and surgical innovations. It appears that while the impact of surgery on global warming is undeniable, its extent depends on means of treatment and geographical location. Before and after an operation, primary, secondary and tertiary prevention accompanied by surgical sobriety (avoiding unnecessary or unjustified actions) can be virtuous in terms of sustainable development. However, the sanitary benefits of these actions are often opposed to environmental benefit, which has yet to be satisfactorily assessed. Lastly, the carbon footprint has yet to be incorporated into research protocols or the innovations under development. This should impel us not only to sensitize the different healthcare actors to relevant issues, but also to improve working conditions.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a bariatric surgical unit is a complex but feasible project

Obesity is a growing issue worldwide, whose causes and consequences are linked to the environment and which therefore has a high carbon footprint. On the other hand, obesity surgery, along with other procedures in surgical suites, entails environmental consequences and responsibilities. We conducted a prospective comparative study on two groups of bariatric interventions (N = 59 and 56, respectively) during two consecutive periods of time (Oct 2021-March 2022), first without and then with specific measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions related to bariatric procedures by approximately 18%. These measures included recycling of disposable surgical equipment, minimizing its use, and curbing anesthetic gas emissions. Further and continuous efforts/incentives are warranted, including reframing the surgical strategies. Instead of comparing measurements, which is difficult at the present time, we suggest defining an ECO-SCORE in operating rooms, among other healthcare facilities.