The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations: A Systematic Review.

Szczegóły
Abstrakt

Tytuł:: The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations: A Systematic Review.
Autorzy:: Rizan C; Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, United Kingdom.; Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, United Kingdom.; Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, United Kingdom.; Centre for Sustainable Healthcare, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Steinbach I; Centre for Sustainable Healthcare, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Nicholson R; University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Lillywhite R; University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Reed M; Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Bhutta MF; Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, United Kingdom.; Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, United Kingdom.; Medical Fair and Ethical Trade Group (International Department), BMA, London, United Kingdom.
Źródło:: Annals of surgery [Ann Surg] 2020 Dec; Vol. 272 (6), pp. 986-995.
Typ publikacji:: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Systematic Review
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Original Publication: Philadelphia, PA : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
MeSH Terms:: Carbon Footprint*
Surgical Procedures, Operative*
Humans ; Operating Rooms
References:: Costello A, Abbas M, Allen A, et al. Managing the health effects of climate change: Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission. Lancet 2009; 373:1693–1733.
Chung JW, Meltzer DO. Estimate of the carbon footprint of the US health care sector. JAMA 2009; 302:1970–1972.
NHS Sustainable Development Unit, Stockholm Environment Institute. NHS England carbon emissions carbon footprinting report. London: Sustainable Development Unit; 2008. Available at: https://www.sduhealth.org.uk/policy-strategy/reporting/nhs-carbon-footprint.aspx. Accessed April 30, 2020.
Eckelman MJ, Sherman J. Environmental impacts of the U.S. health care system and effects on public health. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0157014.
Sustainable Development Unit, Carbon Footprint update for NHS in England 2015. Cambridge: Sustainable Development Unit; 2016. Available at: https://www.sduhealth.org.uk/policy-strategy/reporting/nhs-carbon-footprint.aspx. Accessed April 30, 2020.
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, National Statistics. 2018 UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Provisional Figures. London: UK Government; 2019. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/790626/2018-provisional-emissions-statistics-report.pdf. Accessed April 30, 2020.
Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R, et al. Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 2015; 49:1779–1786.
Lee BK, Ellenbecker MJ, Moure-Eraso R. Analyses of the recycling potential of medical plastic wastes. Waste Manag 2002; 22:461–470.
Sustainable Development Unit, Public Health England, NHS England. Reducing the use of natural resources in health and social care. Cambridge: Sustainable Development Unit; 2018. Available at: https://www.sduhealth.org.uk/policy-strategy/reporting/natural-resource-footprint-2018.aspx. Accessed April 30, 2020.
Goldberg ME, Vekeman D, Torjman MC, et al. Medical waste in the environment: do anesthesia personnel have a role to play? J Clin Anesth 1996; 8:475–510.
Penn E, Yasso SF, Wei JL. Reducing disposable equipment waste for tonsillectomy and adenotonsillectomy cases. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012; 147:615–618.
MacNeill A, Lillywhite R, Brown C. The impact of surgery on global climate: a carbon footprinting study of operating theatres in three health systems. Lancet Planet Health 2017; 1:e381–e388.
Berners-Lee M. How Bad are Bananas; the Carbon Footprint of Everything. London: Profile Books; 2010.
World Resources Institute. Greenhouse gas protocol, product life cycle accounting and reporting standard. USA: World Resources Institute; 2011. Available at: https://www.wri.org/publication/greenhouse-gas-protocol-product-life-cycle-accounting-and-reporting-standard. Accessed April 30, 2020.
Department for Business Innovation and Skills. PAS 2050:2011 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. UK: Department for Business Innovation and Skills; 2011. Available at: http://www.bsigroup.com/Standards-and-Publications/How-we-can-help-you/Professional-Standards-Service/PAS-2050. Accessed April 30, 2020.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management- life cycle assessment- principles and framework. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2006. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html. Accessed April 30, 2020.
World Resources Institute. Technical guidance for calculating scope 3 emissions. USA: World Resources Institute; 2013. Available at: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/Scope3_Calculation_Guidance_0.pdf. Accessed April 30, 2020.
Minx J, Wiedmann T, Barrett J, et al. Methods Review to Support the PAS for the Calculation of the Embodied Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services. London: Stockholm Environment Institute and University of Minnesota; 2008.
Berners-Lee M, Howard DC, Moss J, et al. Greenhouse gas footprinting for small businesses-the use of input-output data. Sci Total Environ 2011; 409:883–891.
Kennelly C, Berners-Lee M, Hewitt C. Hybrid life-cycle assessment for robust, best-practice carbon accounting. J Clean Prod 2019; 208:35–43.
Pomponi F, Lenzen M. Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) will likely yield more accurate results than process-based LCA. J Clean Prod 2018; 176:210–215.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14067:2018 Carbon footprint of products — Requirements and guidelines for quantification. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2006. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/71206.html. Accessed April 30, 2020.
Kagoma Y, Stall N, Rubinstein E, et al. People, planet and profits: the case for greening operating rooms. CMAJ 2012; 184:1905–1911.
Guetter CR, Williams BJ, Slama E, et al. Greening the operating room. Am J Surg. 2018 July 19; [Epub]. Accessed on 30 April 2020 Available at: https://www.americanjournalofsurgery.com/article/S0002-9610(18)30087-4/fulltext.
Kwakye G, Brat GA, Makary MA. Green surgical practices for health care. Arch Surg 2011; 146:131–136.
Berner JE, Gras MDP, Troisi L, et al. Measuring the carbon footprint of plastic surgery: a preliminary experience in a Chilean teaching hospital. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017; 70:1777–1779.
Morris DS, Wright T, Somner JE, et al. The carbon footprint of cataract surgery. Eye 2013; 27:495–501.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339:b2535.
Young JM, Solomon MJ. How to critically appraise an article. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 6:82–91.
Greenhalgh T. How to Read a Paper - The Basics of Evidence-based Medicine. 5th ed.West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell; 2014.
Campion N, Thiel CL, DeBlois J, et al. Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US. Sci Total Environ 2012; 425:191–198.
Gatenby PA. Modelling the carbon footprint of reflux control. Int J Surg 2011; 9:72–74.
Thiel CL, Woods NC, Bilec MM. Strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from laparoscopic surgery. Am J Public Health 2018; 108 (S2):S158–S164.
Thiel CL, Schehlein E, Ravilla T, et al. Cataract surgery and environmental sustainability: waste and lifecycle assessment of phacoemulsification at a private healthcare facility. J Cataract Refract Surg 2017; 43:1391–1398.
Woods DL, McAndrew T, Nevadunsky N, et al. Carbon footprint of robotically-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: a comparison. Int J Med Robot 2015; 11:406–412.
Ibbotson S, Dettmer T, Kara S, et al. Eco-efficiency of disposable and reusable surgical instruments - a scissors case. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2013; 18:1137–1148.
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. UK Government GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting. UK: UK Government; 2018. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/government-conversion-factors-for-company-reporting. Accessed April 30, 2020.
Sherman J, Ryan S. Ecological responsibility in anesthesia practice. Int Anesthesiol Clin 2010; 48:139–151.
Cotton RT, Cohen AP. Eco-conservation and healthcare ethics: a call to action. Laryngoscope 2010; 120:4–8.
Healthcare without Harm. Health care's climate footprint climate-smart health care series green paper number one. Arlington, USA: Healthcare without Harm and ARUP; 2019. Available at: https://noharm-uscanada.org/content/global/health-care-climate-footprint-report. Accessed April 30, 2020.
Kummerer K, Dettenkofer M, Scherrer M. Comparison of reusable and disposable laparotomy pads. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1996; 1:67–73.
Ison E, Miller A. The use of LCA to introduce life-cycle thinking into decision-making for the purchase of medical devices in the NHS. J Environ Assess Pol Manag 2000; 2:453–476.
Overcash M. A comparison of reusable and disposable perioperative textiles: sustainability state-of-the-art 2012. Anesth Analg 2012; 114:1055–1066.
McGain F, McAlister S, McGavin A, et al. The financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use plastic anaesthetic drug trays. Anaesth Intensive Care 2010; 38:538–544.
Eckelman M, Mosher M, Gonzalez A, et al. Comparative life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable laryngeal mask airways. Anesth Analg 2012; 114:1067–1072.
Sherman JD, Raibley LA, Eckelman MJ. Life cycle assessment and costing methods for device procurement: comparing reusable and single-use disposable laryngoscopes. Anesth Analg 2018; 127:434–443.
Davis NF, McGrath S, Quinlan M, et al. Carbon footprint in flexible ureteroscopy: a comparative study on the environmental impact of reusable and single-use ureteroscopes. J Endourol 2018; 32:214–217.
McGain F, McAlister S, McGavin A, et al. A life cycle assessment of reusable and single-use central venous catheter insertion kits. Anesth Analg 2012; 114:1073–1080.
McGain F, Story D, Lim T, et al. Financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use anaesthetic equipment. Br J Anaesth 2017; 118:862–869.
Kwakye G, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA. Commentary: a call to go green in health care by reprocessing medical equipment. Acad Med 2010; 85:398–400.
Unger S, Landis A. Assessing the environmental, human health, and economic impacts of reprocessed medical devices in a Phoenix hospital's supply chain. J Clean Prod 2016; 112:1995–2003.
Farrelly JS, Clemons C, Witkins S, et al. Surgical tray optimization as a simple means to decrease perioperative costs. J Surg Res 2017; 220:320–326.
Zygourakis CC, Yoon S, Valencia V, et al. Operating room waste: disposable supply utilization in neurosurgical procedures. J Neurosurg 2017; 126:620–625.
NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement. Improving quality and efficiency in the operating theatre. Coventry: NHS; 2009. Available at: http://harmfreecare.org/wp-content/files_mf/Improving-quality-and-efficiency-in-the-operating-theatre.pdf. Accessed April 30, 2020.
Mortimer F, Isherwood J, Wilkinson A, et al. Sustainability in quality improvement: redefining value. Future Healthc J 2018; 5:88–93.
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20200610 Date Completed: 20201210 Latest Revision: 20210125
Update Code:: 20240104
DOI:: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003951
PMID:: 32516230
: Czasopismo naukowe

Of Background Data and Objectives: Operating theatres are typically the most resource-intensive area of a hospital, 3-6 times more energy-intensive than the rest of the hospital and a major contributor of waste. The primary objective of this systematic review was to evaluate existing literature calculating the carbon footprint of surgical operations, determining opportunities for improving the environmental impact of surgery.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The Cochrane Database, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched and inclusion criteria applied. The study endpoints were extracted and compared, with the risk of bias determined.
Results: A total of 4604 records were identified, and 8 were eligible for inclusion. This review found that the carbon footprint of a single operation ranged 6-814 kg carbon dioxide equivalents. The studies found that major carbon hotspots within the examined operating theatres were electricity use, and procurement of consumables. It was possible to reduce the carbon footprint of surgery through improving energy-efficiency of theatres, using reusable or reprocessed surgical devices and streamlining processes. There were significant methodological limitations within included studies.
Conclusions: Future research should focus on optimizing the carbon footprint of operating theatres through streamlining operations, expanding assessments to other surgical contexts, and determining ways to reduce the footprint through targeting carbon hotspots.

Informacja