Carbon footprint of dermatologic surgery

What Is the Carbon Footprint of Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery?

Background/Objectives: While the economic cost of adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery has been studied extensively, its environmental impact is unknown. The aim of this study is to determine the carbon footprint (CF) associated with ASD surgery. Methods: ASD patients who underwent > four levels of corrective surgery between 2017 and 2021 were included. The open group included a posterior-only, single-stage technique, while the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) group was defined as the use of lateral interbody fusion and percutaneous posterior screw fixation. The two groups were propensity-score matched to adjust for baseline demographic, surgical, and radiographic characteristics. Data on all disposables and reusable instruments, anesthetic gas, and non-gas medications used during surgery were collected from medical records. The CF of transporting, using, and disposing of each product and the footprint of energy use in operating rooms were calculated. The CF produced was evaluated using the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which is relative to the amount of CO2 with an equivalent global warming potential. Results: Of the 175 eligible patients, 15 pairs (65 ± 9 years, 47% female) were properly matched and analyzed for all variables. The average CF generated per case was 147.7 ± 37.3 kg-CO2e, of which 54% was attributable to energy used to sterilize reusable instruments, followed by anesthetic gas released into the environment (17%) and operating room air conditioning (15%). Conclusions: The CF generated during ASD surgery should be reduced using a multidisciplinary approach, taking into account that different surgical procedures have different impacts on carbon emission sources.

How we can reduce the environmental impact of our operating theatres: a narrative review

Climate change is projected to become the leading cause of adverse health outcomes globally, and the healthcare system is a key contributor. Surgical theatres are three to six times more pollutant than other hospital areas, and produce anywhere from a fifth to a third of total hospital waste. Hospitals are increasingly expected to make operating theatres more sustainable, however guidelines to improve environmental sustainability are lacking, and previous research takes a narrow approach to operative sustainability. This paper presents a narrative review that, following a 'review of reviews' approach, aims to summarize the key recommendations to improve the environmental sustainability of surgical theatres. Key domains of discussion identified across the literature included minimisation of volatile anaesthetics, reduction of operating theatre power consumption, optimisation of surgical approach, re-use and re-processing of surgical instruments, waste management, and research, education and leadership. Implementation of individual items in these domains has seen significant reductions in the environmental impact of operative practice. This comprehensive summary of recommendations lays the framework from which providers can assess the sustainability of their practice and for the development of encompassing guidelines to build an environmentally sustainable surgical service.

Carbon footprint of a laser unit: a study of two centres in the UK

PURPOSE

Climate change has serious consequences for our wellbeing. Healthcare systems themselves contribute significantly to our total carbon footprint, of which emissions from surgical practice are a major component. The primary sources of emissions identified are anaesthetic gases, disposal of single-use equipment, energy usage, and travel to and from clinical areas. We sought to quantify the waste generated by laser surgery which, to our knowledge, has not been previously reported.

METHODS

The carbon footprint of two laser centres operating within the United Kingdom were measured. The internationally recognised Greenhouse Gas Protocol was used as a guiding framework to classify sources of waste and conversion factors issued by the UK government were used to quantify emissions.

RESULTS

The total carbon footprints per day at each unit were 299.181 carbon dioxide equivalents (kgCo2eq) and 121.512 kgCO2eq, respectively. We found the carbon footprint of individual laser treatments to be approximately 15 kgCO2eq per procedure. The biggest overall contributor to the carbon footprint was found to be the emissions generated from staff, patient and visitor travel. This was followed by electricity usage, and indirect emissions from physical waste and laundry.

CONCLUSIONS

The carbon footprint of laser procedures was considerably less than the average surgical operation in the UK. This initial study measures the carbon footprint of a laser center in a clinical setting and allows us to identify where improvements can be made to eventually achieve a net carbon zero health care system.

Sustainable dermatology-A practical guide for the Australian dermatologist

Globally, healthcare systems can account for up to 10% of national CO2 emissions. There is increasing awareness of the need to act to reduce the impact on our planet by living sustainably in our personal and professional lives. Literature on sustainability can be complex, and with so many demands on our attention and time, it is challenging for the practising dermatologist to grasp where to begin. This manuscript provides a practical guide with quantifiable impacts for each action. With mindful use of resources, both profitability and the well-being of patients and doctors can align with environmental protection.

Barriers and facilitators to sustainable operating theatres: a systematic review using the Theoretical Domains Framework

BACKGROUND

The health sector contributes significantly to the climate crisis. Operating theatres (OTs) in particular are a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and waste, and while there are several evidence-based guidelines to reduce this impact, these are often not followed. The authors systematically reviewed the literature to identify barriers and facilitators of sustainable behaviour in OTs, categorising these using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, and Global Health databases were searched for articles published between January 2000 and June 2023, using the concepts: barriers and facilitators, sustainability, and surgery. Two reviewers screened abstracts from identified studies, evaluated quality, and extracted data. Identified determinants were mapped to TDF domains and further themes as required. The results were reported in line with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were selected for analysis and assessment (17 surveys and four interview studies) comprising 8286 participants, including surgeons, nurses, and anaesthetists. Eighteen themes across 10 TDF domains were identified. The most common barriers to adoption of green behaviours in OTs were in domains of: 'knowledge' ( N =18), for example knowledge of sustainable practices; 'environmental context and resources' ( N =16) for example personnel shortage and workload and inadequate recycling facilities; 'social influences' ( N =9) for example lack of leadership/organisational mandate or support; 'beliefs about consequences' ( N =9) for example concerns regarding safety. Intention was the most common facilitator, with 11 studies citing it.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite intentions to adopt sustainable practices in OTs, this review identified several barriers to doing so. Interventions should focus on mitigating these, especially by improving staff's knowledge of sustainability practices and working within the environmental context and time pressures. Furthermore, institutional change programmes and policies are needed to prioritise sustainability at the hospital and trust level. Additional qualitative work should also be conducted using behavioural frameworks, to more comprehensively investigate barriers and determinants to decarbonise OTs.

The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review update

INTRODUCTION

Sustainability in healthcare is a rapidly developing area of research with recent formal recognition from institutions around the world. We completed an update of a systematic review published in 2020. The aims of this review were to determine the reported carbon footprints of surgical operations in hospitals worldwide, identify variations in reported carbon footprints and highlight carbon hotspots associated with surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The MEDLINE®, Embase® and Cochrane Library databases were searched, and eligibility criteria applied. The study characteristics, scope of product inventory and results were extracted and synthesised. A quality assessment of each study was completed to inform the reliability of the research.

RESULTS

1,308 articles were identified and 7 met the inclusion criteria for the review. The carbon footprint ranged from 28.49kg to 505.1kg carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Medical devices and consumables were the greatest contributor to emissions, with material production and manufacture representing the majority of this carbon hotspot. There were significant methodological limitations and a lack of consistency in carbon footprint calculations between studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review identifies medical devices and consumables as the largest carbon hotspot where healthcare providers should target their sustainability initiatives. Nevertheless, the number of studies was limited and the quality of the evidence was weak. We recommend that researchers in healthcare sustainability develop international standards for conducting and reporting such studies. This would allow for comparison of individual studies and facilitate meta-analysis of cumulative evidence. A reliable evidence base is a prerequisite for identifying optimal interventions to ensure societal benefits.

Disposable and reusable instruments in dental health practice: A comparison of cost factors in a public provider organization in Queensland, Australia

OBJECTIVES

Choosing between reusable instruments (RIs) and disposable instruments (DIs) for dental care provision requires a careful consideration of costs and their contributing factors, alongside other choice criteria. This study aimed to assess the current use of instruments in the West Moreton Oral Health Service (WMOHS) in Queensland, Australia, with a broader goal of informing future practice in this and comparable organizations.

METHODS

A cost model was developed reflecting costs arising from procurement, reprocessing and disposal, depending on the RI and DI composition of instrumentation. The current practice in WMOHS was compared to modular (RI-only and DI-only) strategies by considering four standard instrument sets (examination, simple extraction, surgical extraction, restoration) and the annual use of instruments in the organization at large. The use of resources (water, electricity) and emissions (waste) were quantified for each strategy. The robustness of findings was explored across a range of scenarios that involved varying instrument prices, lifespans, factors impacting on the cost of reprocessing (labour, water, energy), the cost of waste disposal and couriering.

RESULTS

At the organization level, the current mix of instruments (A$1.28 m per year) was 4% more costly than the lower cost, RI-only alternative (A$1.23 m). However, with lower DI prices or higher labour costs current practice would become the lowest cost option. Results for specific instrument sets varied by service type. DI-only offered the lowest cost option for oral examinations (A$6.29), and the current practice of mixed instrumentation for simple extractions (A$16.56). RI-only sets were less costly in more resource intensive procedures such as surgical extractions (A$40.19) and restorations (A$43.83). In terms of environmental impacts, the use of instruments based on current practice required 37% of water and energy use of an RI-only alternative and generated 36% waste of the DI-only alternative.

CONCLUSIONS

Reusable instruments are generally less costly than DIs, but for specific instrument sets the outcome depends on the type of procedure. In some circumstances, mixed instrumentation can provide the lowest cost alternative. While the WMOHS instrument mix used in current practice does not minimize cost for the provider, it may be justified in light of operational risks, logistics and uncertainty regarding cost factors.

Life cycle assessment of routinely used endoscopic instruments and simple intervention to reduce our environmental impact

OBJECTIVES

GI endoscopy units represent the third largest producers of medical waste. We aimed to determine endoscopic instrument composition and life cycle assessment (LCA) and to assess a sustainability proposal based on a mark on the instruments that identifies parts can be safely recycled or 'green mark'.

DESIGN

Material composition analysis and LCA of forceps, snares and clips from four different manufacturers (A-D) were performed with four different methods. Carbon footprint from production, transportation and end of life of these instruments was calculated. In 30 consecutive procedures, we marked the contact point with the working channel. 5 cm away from that point was considered as green mark. One-week prospective study was conducted with 184 procedures evaluating 143 instruments (75 forceps, 49 snares and 19 haemoclips) to assess the efficacy of this recyclable mark.

RESULTS

Composition from different manufacturers varied widely. Most common materials were high global warming potential (GWP) waste (polyethylene, polypropylene and acrylonitrile) and low GWP waste (stainless steel). Significant differences were found for the forceps (0.31-0.47 kg of CO2 equivalent (CO2-eq)) and haemoclips (0.41-0.57 kg CO2-eq) between the manufacturers. Green mark was established 131.26 cm for gastroscope and 195.32 cm for colonoscope. One-week activity produced 67.74 kg CO2-eq. Applying our sustainability intervention, we could reduce up to 27.44% (18.26 kg CO2-eq). This allows the recycling of 61.7% of the instrument total weight (4.69 kg).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of carbon footprint is crucial to select the most sustainable alternatives because there are large variations between brands. A mark to identify recyclable parts could reduce our environmental impact significantly.

Physicians' views of patient-planetary health co-benefit prescribing: a mixed methods systematic review

Health professionals are increasingly called to become partners in planetary health. Using patient-planetary health (P-PH) co-benefit prescribing framing, we did a mixed methods systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators to adopting P-PH co-benefit prescribing by physicians and mapped these onto the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behaviour (COM-B) model and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We searched electronic databases from inception until October, 2022, and did a content analysis of the included articles (n=12). Relevant categories were matched to items in the COM-B model and TDF. Nine barriers and eight facilitators were identified. Barriers included an absence of, or little, knowledge of how to change practice and time to implement change; facilitators included having policy statements and guidelines from respected associations. More diverse study designs that include health professionals, patients, and health-care system stakeholders are needed to ensure a more holistic understanding of the individual, system, and policy levers involved in implementing clinical work informed by planetary health.

Behavioural change interventions encouraging clinicians to reduce carbon emissions in clinical activity: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinical activity accounts for 70-80% of the carbon footprint of healthcare. A critical component of reducing emissions is shifting clinical behaviour towards reducing, avoiding, or replacing carbon-intensive healthcare. The objective of this systematic review was to find, map and assess behaviour change interventions that have been implemented in healthcare settings to encourage clinicians to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their clinical activity.

METHODS

Studies eligible for inclusion were those reporting on a behaviour change intervention to reduce carbon emissions via changes in healthcare workplace behaviour. Six databases were searched in November 2021 (updated February 2022). A pre-determined template was used to extract data from the studies, and risk of bias was assessed. The behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used in the interventions were coded using the BCT Taxonomy.

RESULTS

Six full-text studies were included in this review, and 14 conference abstracts. All studies used a before-after intervention design. The majority were UK studies (n = 15), followed by US (n = 3) and Australia (n = 2). Of the full-text studies, four focused on reducing the emissions associated with anaesthesia, and two aimed at reducing unnecessary test ordering. Of the conference abstracts, 13 focused on anaesthetic gas usage, and one on respiratory inhalers. The most common BCTs used were social support, salience of consequences, restructuring the physical environment, prompts and cues, feedback on outcome of behaviour, and information about environmental consequences. All studies reported success of their interventions in reducing carbon emissions, prescribing, ordering, and financial costs; however, only two studies reported the magnitude and significance of their intervention's success. All studies scored at least one item as unclear or at risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Most interventions to date have targeted anaesthesia or pathology test ordering in hospital settings. Due to the diverse study outcomes and consequent inability to pool the results, this review is descriptive only, limiting our ability to conclude the effectiveness of interventions. Multiple BCTs were used in each study but these were not compared, evaluated, or used systematically. All studies lacked rigour in study design and measurement of outcomes.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

The study was registered on Prospero (ID number CRD42021272526) (Breth-Petersen et al., Prospero 2021: CRD42021272526).

HealthcareLCA: an open-access living database of health-care environmental impact assessments

Anthropogenic environmental change negatively effects human health and is increasing health-care system demand. Paradoxically, the provision of health care, which itself is a substantial contributor to environmental degradation, is compounding this problem. There is increasing willingness to transition towards sustainable health-care systems globally and ensuring that strategy and action are informed by best available evidence is imperative. In this Personal View, we present an interactive, open-access database designed to support this effort. Functioning as a living repository of environmental impact assessments within health care, the HealthcareLCA database collates 152 studies, predominantly peer-reviewed journal articles, into one centralised and publicly accessible location, providing impact estimates (currently totalling 3671 numerical values) across 1288 health-care products and processes. The database brings together research generated over the past two decades and indicates exponential field growth.

How can we address the ever-pressing need to 'green up' surgical practice in the National Health Service?

Clinical practice has inadvertently changed after the COVID-19 pandemic and currently the need to provide sustainable surgical services is more pressing than ever. The National Health Service has committed to a long-term efficient plan to reduce carbon footprint but there is no detailed plan for surgical practice, the domain that contributes the most to hospital-derived pollution. A series of consecutive steps and measures ought to be taken, starting from a hybrid approach quantifying surgically attributed carbon footprint. Then, a variety of suggested measures can be widely discussed and accordingly applied on a wider or more local level. Appropriate training should always precede implementing new practices to ensure that staff is familiar with these. These measures cover a broad range and should be arranged on a patient-centred basis from preoperative preconditioning to an effective follow-up. The need for more intense research and implementation of enhanced recovery protocols is widely discussed. Also, the necessity of green research and reinvestment of materials and resources is highlighted. A change of philosophy from a cradle-to-grave approach to a repurposing approach is suggested. We are confident that a new era is dawning in surgical practice and teamwork is the key for providing greener surgical services.

Operating in a Climate Crisis: A State-of-the-Science Review of Life Cycle Assessment within Surgical and Anesthetic Care

BACKGROUND

Both human health and the health systems we depend on are increasingly threatened by a range of environmental crises, including climate change. Paradoxically, health care provision is a significant driver of environmental pollution, with surgical and anesthetic services among the most resource-intensive components of the health system.

OBJECTIVES

This analysis aimed to summarize the state of life cycle assessment (LCA) practice as applied to surgical and anesthetic care via review of extant literature assessing environmental impacts of related services, procedures, equipment, and pharmaceuticals.

METHODS

A state-of-the-science review was undertaken following a registered protocol and a standardized, LCA-specific reporting framework. Three bibliographic databases (Scopus®, PubMed, and Embase®) and the gray literature were searched. Inclusion criteria were applied, eligible entries critically appraised, and key methodological data and results extracted.

RESULTS

From 1,316 identified records, 44 studies were eligible for inclusion. The annual climate impact of operating surgical suites ranged between 3,200,000 and 5,200,000 kg CO2e. The climate impact of individual surgical procedures varied considerably, with estimates ranging from 6 to 1,007 kg CO2e. Anesthetic gases; single-use equipment; and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system operation were the main emissions hot spots identified among operating room- and procedure-specific analyses. Single-use equipment used in surgical settings was generally more harmful than equivalent reusable items across a range of environmental parameters. Life cycle inventories have been assembled and associated climate impacts calculated for three anesthetic gases (2-85 kg CO2e/MAC-h) and 20 injectable anesthetic drugs (0.01-3.0 kg CO2e/gAPI).

DISCUSSION

Despite the recent proliferation of surgical and anesthesiology-related LCAs, extant studies address a miniscule fraction of the numerous services, procedures, and products available today. Methodological heterogeneity, external validity, and a lack of background life cycle inventory data related to many essential surgical and anesthetic inputs are key limitations of the current evidence base. This review provides an indication of the spectrum of environmental impacts associated with surgical and anesthetic care at various scales. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP8666.