Download Hi-Res ImageDownload to MS-PowerPointCite This:Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 3, 1779-1786

ArticleDecember 17, 2014

Environmental Impacts of Surgical Procedures: Life Cycle Assessment of Hysterectomy in the United States
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

View Author Information

Open PDF Supporting Information (1)

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 3, 1779–1786

Click to copy citationCitation copied!

https://doi.org/10.1021/es504719g

Published December 17, 2014

Request reuse permissions

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The healthcare sector is a driver of economic growth in the U.S., with spending on healthcare in 2012 reaching $2.8 trillion, or 17% of the U.S. gross domestic product, but it is also a significant source of emissions that adversely impact environmental and public health. The current state of the healthcare industry offers significant opportunities for environmental efficiency improvements, potentially leading to reductions in costs, resource use, and waste without compromising patient care. However, limited research exists that can provide quantitative, sustainable solutions. The operating room is the most resource-intensive area of a hospital, and surgery is therefore an important focal point to understand healthcare-related emissions. Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to quantify environmental emissions from four different surgical approaches (abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic, and robotic) used in the second most common major procedure for women in the U.S., the hysterectomy. Data were collected from 62 cases of hysterectomy. Life cycle assessment results show that major sources of environmental emissions include the production of disposable materials and single-use surgical devices, energy used for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, and anesthetic gases. By scientifically evaluating emissions, the healthcare industry can strategically optimize its transition to a more sustainable system.

Subjects

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The healthcare sector is a leading driver of economic growth and innovation in the U.S., with spending on healthcare in 2012 reaching $2.8 trillion, or 17% of the U.S. gross domestic product. (1) Globally, spending on healthcare services is expected to increase 4.4% a year with population growth and increased life expectancy. (2) Despite the significant local, national, and global impacts of healthcare procedures and facilities, the environmental costs are often overlooked. Resource consumption across this large industry has reached unsustainable levels in multiple areas, including energy consumption, material consumption, and emissions. Environmental campaigns within hospitals typically focus on waste reduction, yet with the size and interconnectedness of U.S. healthcare, supply chain impacts, energy use, and emissions are also significant.

There is no “magic pill” to reduce the environmental impacts associated with providing healthcare. Yet the current state of healthcare treatment across the U.S. and globally, offers significant opportunity for efficiency improvements, potentially leading to reductions in costs, resource use and waste, and environmental impacts. (3) U.S. hospitals are the second most energy intensive building type, cumulatively spending $8.8 billion per year on energy. (4, 5) Hospitals generate 3.4 billion pounds of solid waste annually, relying on the $40.3 billion disposable medical supply industry. (6, 7) Hospitals are beginning to scientifically evaluate the source of negative environmental impacts in current medical practice, specifically in regards to energy, but there is little research on environmental impacts. With better information, healthcare innovators can strategically optimize the transition to a more sustainable system, while maintaining or improving the safety, comfort, and health outcomes of patients. (8, 9)

Though still rare, the adoption of life cycle assessment (LCA) is increasing as a tool to analyze the impacts of healthcare and health systems. As medical waste is the most visible form of healthcare’s environmental impacts, many studies have focused on best-practices for proper treatment and disposal. (10-13) A burgeoning field set on reducing these long-term environmental impacts is developing methods and best practices to assess and ameliorate the impacts at multiple levels. (14-16) A study focused on the impacts of birth procedures, shows that multiple components of medical procedures have significant impacts, including: energy systems and material supply chain. (17) Other studies found that even aspects of procedures that may be commonly overlooked are found to have significant impacts, such as use of anesthetic gases (potent greenhouse gases), housekeeping routines, and potentially inefficient drug delivery methods. (18-20)

This paper presents a robust analysis of the life cycle impacts of a single surgical procedure, using four different surgical methods. Because the operating room (OR) is the most resource-intensive area of a hospital, understanding the environmental impact of surgery is critical to understanding healthcare-related emissions in general. (21-23) A hysterectomy, or the removal of a woman’s uterus, is the second most common major surgery for women in the U.S. (24) and was chosen for this study based on the four surgical approaches broadly used to perform this procedure: vaginal, abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic. These four approaches represent the evolution of modern surgery from larger incisions and small tools held in the surgeons hand to smaller incisions requiring more sophisticated technology, at times even physically separating the surgeon from the patient. The hysterectomy, still performed using vastly different technology, allows us a glimpse at how these developments might affect the resource use and environmental impact of surgery, at a time when many types of surgery now have, or are actively evolving toward, minimally invasive approaches. Medical advancements may improve patient outcomes or reduce surgical complications, but they may also have co-benefits and co-costs which, with thoughtful future development, could be modified to reduce future environmental burden. Without developing baselines, understanding the co-benefits and co-costs is difficult. Opportunities likely exist for improving design or use of these technologies that takes advantage of medical advances while reducing costs and impacts. The results of this study aim to provide an important profile of the emissions resulting from surgery, which are vital to consider at this important time in healthcare, as we make decisions about cost, reform, access, and the impact on future generations.

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This research utilized LCA to quantify the environmental emissions of a vaginal, an abdominal, a laparoscopic, and a robotic hysterectomy in the operating rooms (OR) at Magee-Womens Hospital (Magee) of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC). Magee is a top-ranked, 360-bed teaching hospital, which performs about 1400 hysterectomies annually. (25) The site was chosen based on the surgical volume and distribution. LCA is an assessment tool that analyzes the environmental impacts of a product or process by aggregating the emissions at all stages of the life cycle, including the raw materials production, manufacturing, use, disposal, and any transportation between these steps. (26, 27) The functional unit for this study is one hysterectomy. The boundaries encompass the raw material extraction, production, use, and end-of-life of the processes and products required to perform each type of hysterectomy from the moment the patient enters the OR to the moment she leaves the OR, Figure 1. This research used a hybrid LCA framework developed for analyzing infant birthing procedures by incorporating process LCA data and Economic Input Output LCA (EIO-LCA) data. (16, 17, 28) Waste audits were conducted, and Monte Carlo simulations were used to quantify the variability and uncertainty in emissions for each component of a hysterectomy.

Figure 1. Boundaries for life cycle assessment of hysterectomy. HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, MSW = municipal solid waste, Path = pathogenic, RMW = regulated medical waste.

Waste Audit

To quantify and characterize the products and materials entering Magee’s municipal solid waste and recycling streams, detailed waste audits of 62 cases of hysterectomy were conducted (15 each abdominal, vaginal, and robotic, and 17 laparoscopic). The audits involved data collection from individual patients’ medical cases; therefore, the project team applied for and received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval under 45 CFR 46.110.(4) and 45 CFR 46.110.(5) (IRB#: PRO11010250). Patients undergoing vaginal, abdominal, laparoscopic, or robotic hysterectomies for noncancer related reasons were identified and approached for participation in the study. Waste audits were conducted over the course of 1 year, with the target goal of auditing the waste from at least 15 of each type of hysterectomy so that variability in material use could be included in the Monte Carlo Analysis. Once a patient consented to participate in the study, researchers conducted a visual inspection of the OR prior to the surgery to ensure all previously generated waste was eliminated. Immediately following the surgery, the municipal solid waste (MSW) and recycling was collected, labeled with the case identification number, and moved to a secure storage location for sorting and weighing. Regulated Medical Waste (RMW), which undergoes autoclaving prior to landfilling, was estimated by quantifying the type of “peel packs” or package labels found in the MSW. Chemo/Pathogenic waste was calculated using uterine weights, as described in the patient records. Quantities of anesthesia and abdominal insuflation were calculated from patient records, as described in the Supporting Information.

Life Cycle Inventory

To create a life cycle inventory of the data collected through waste audits and site assessment, unit processes were assigned to each data, with preference given first to U.S. based databases, i.e., USLCI (29) and then the most robust database, i.e., ecoinvent. (30) All database selections were determined by comparing the physical description and application of the material to the unit process description. Impacts due to the transportation of material wastes were calculated using distances from the hospital to the landfill and recycling facilities based on waste hauling quantity data provided by Magee’s facility management. Database selection can be seen in the Supporting Information.

Certain unit processes were modified based on literature to more accurately reflect the product or process being represented. The USLCI electricity process was modified to match the energy mix of Pennsylvania for 2012. (31) Disposable gowns, drapes, and bluewrap from the OR are a type of polypropylene fabric also known as spunbond-meltblown-spunbond or SMS PP. As this material makes up a large portion of a hysterectomy’s waste stream by weight, the USLCI unit process for PP production was modified to include the manufacture of the textile beyond pelletization of the plastic. (32)

Impacts due to production and disposal of reusable linens were allocated based on the estimated lifespan of each linen type, as listed in the Supporting Information. Reusable stainless steel instruments were estimated to have a lifespan of 300 uses, based on a 2012 study of reusable surgical instruments. (33) Previous literature was used to supplement gathered data on the sterilization process for reusable materials and linens, as seen in the Supporting Information. (17, 34-37) Characterization factors for the global warming potential of anesthetic gases were taken from previous literature, as described in the Supporting Information. (19, 38)

Hybrid LCA Approach

Certain medical equipment used in laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies was too complex and expensive to be broken down accurately into representative components. To account for the manufacturing impacts from the medical equipment, this study utilized economic input-output LCA (EIO-LCA). (28) This combination of process LCA and EIO-LCA is called hybrid LCA and is used to address issues that may be encountered using each method alone. (39, 40)

The price paid per unit for each piece of medical equipment was collected from Magee purchasing staff and matched to the number of medical equipment used in each hysterectomy based off of package labels (peel packs) found in the MSW. The monetary values were evaluated using the purchaser price model in EIO-LCA, as the prices were reflective of what the hospital paid, and not the cost to the manufacturer. For the production and disposal of complex medical devices, NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) sector 339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing, and sector 562000: Waste Management and Remediation Services were used, respectively. All monetary values were converted from 2012 U.S. dollars to 2002 dollars, the basis for the most recent EIO-LCA model. (41)

Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Environmental impacts from the inputs and outputs of the four types of hysterectomy were calculated using TRACI 2.1 for both process LCA and EIO-LCA. (42) Unit conversion was necessary to match the EIO-LCA results in impact categories Acidification, Carcinogenics, NonCarcinogenics, and EcoToxicity with the process LCA results, as seen in the Supporting Information. Embodied energy, or a summation of all energy used during the material’s life cycle, was calculated using cumulative energy demand (CED) version 1.08 developed by ecoinvent version 2.0 and PRé Consultants for process LCA, (43, 44) and the energy analysis function found on the EIO-LCA online tool. (28)

Monte Carlo Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty

Monte Carlo Analysis (MCA), or random number sampling, was used to account for the uncertainty inherent in life cycle inventory data and the variability of material and energy consumption for each type of hysterectomy at this hospital. It should be noted that material use will differ at other facilities, though most U.S. hospitals contract with the same material suppliers and utilize similar custom packs for a given procedure. The use of MCA allows this study to better understand the range of potential environmental impacts resulting from a typical hysterectomy.

This MCA randomly sampled numbers from the probability distributions of materials and their impacts, resulting in an overall distribution of the impacts of a hysterectomy. Distributions of individual material processes in each type of hysterectomy were calculated from waste audit data using the Anderson–Darling test. More information on the MCA and distribution identification can be seen in the Supporting Information. The resulting distribution was calculated from 100 000 random samplings. The 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles, as well as the means and standard deviation for all impact categories, were reported for each hysterectomy as a whole. The impacts due to recycling, because they were negative, were not included within the MCA, but were incorporated as averages in post-MCA results. MCA results are included as error bars in result figures.

Results

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The results are presented in two sections. The first shows the characterization and quantification of materials and waste from four types of hysterectomy, in order to better understand the resource use of current surgical practices and the effects of advancing technology. The second section details the life cycle environmental impacts of resource consumption and energy use in each hysterectomy, in order to help inform potential reduction strategies.

Material Footprint of Hysterectomy: Waste Audit Findings

Waste auditing of abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic, and robotic hysterectomies determined the average material composition of MSW and recycling of each hysterectomy type. Across all four surgeries, SMS PP material, or gowns, bluewrap, and drapes, composed the majority of MSW by weight, from 22% by weight for robotic hysterectomies to 35% for laparoscopic. Gloves accounted for about 5% by weight of each surgery’s waste stream. Other types of plastics, from thin film packaging wrappers to hard plastic trays, made up a minimum of 36% of MSW by weight for vaginal hysterectomies and a maximum of 46% for robotic procedures. Paper from package labeling and cardboard varied from 5% of MSW for abdominal hysterectomies to 18% for robotic. No correlation was found between duration of surgery and quantity of waste generated.

Robotic hysterectomies produced 30% more MSW than the average of other approaches at 13.7 kg per case, as seen in Figure 2. Of that quantity, 22% by weight were gowns, drapes, and bluewrap (SMS PP), 50% were gloves and other plastics, 18% was paper, and 5% was cotton. Abdominal hysterectomies, the most common form of hysterectomy in the U.S., had an average total MSW production of 9.2 kg. Abdominal procedures produced the largest amount of cotton waste at 1 kg per average surgery or 11% of the MSW by weight.

Figure 2. Average material composition of nonhazardous solid waste (municipal solid waste and recycling) from a single hysterectomy by surgery type. SMS = spunbond-meltblown-spunbond.

Recycling was variable for each case, ranging from 4% of total material disposal by weight (0.4 kg) for vaginal hysterectomies to 8% of total material disposal by weight (0.9 kg) for laparoscopic hysterectomies. Researchers discovered nonhazardous, nonrecyclable materials in the recycling waste in 1 out of 15 cases for vaginal and abdominal procedures, in 3 out of 16 cases for laparoscopic procedures, and in 6 out of 15 cases for robotic procedures. Based on estimated material type and observed quantities of noninfectious MSW, recycling rates could be increased by 45 to 60% by weight for each hysterectomy type, reducing the total amount of MSW to one-third of the current average quantity by weight. A 1992 study resulted in similar estimates of recyclability of surgical wastes. (45) Unfortunately, the time and associated costs often prohibit the manual sorting of waste within the OR; however, this presents an opportunity for improved waste management models and systems.

Life Cycle Impacts of Hysterectomy

Robotic hysterectomy was found, on average, to have the largest environmental footprint over other hysterectomy types in every impact category analyzed, as seen in Figure 3. There is, however, significant overlap with laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal hysterectomies in the categories of smog, carcinogens, noncarcinogens, and ecotoxicity. The upper range of laparoscopic hysterectomy’s 90% confidence interval overlaps with average impacts of robotic hysterectomies in every category. Abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies show significantly smaller impacts than laparoscopic and robotic techniques in ozone depletion (ODP), acidification, respiratory, and cumulative energy demand. It should be noted that the error bars in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are largely influenced by anesthetic choice, which varies based on anesthesiologist preference and is not indicative of the type of hysterectomy performed. Without anesthetics, abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies emit significantly less greenhouse gases, with a narrower confidence interval, than laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies.

Figure 3. Total life cycle environmental impacts of an average hysterectomy by surgery type (normalized to highest hysterectomy type in impact category). Negative values reflect positive environmental impacts due to recycling; Error bars represent 90% confidence interval from Monte Carlo Analysis.

Disposable Materials

Cotton production has the largest footprint of all disposable materials, especially in toxicity and human health categories, despite cotton products making up less than 5% by weight of municipal solid waste streams. Production of SMS PP, the material used for gowns, drapes, and bluewrap, makes up about 25% by weight of an abdominal hysterectomy’s embodied energy and accounts for 1–24% of all other impact categories. Impacts of vaginal surgeries are similar, but with 20% less cotton by weight and roughly 3 times the quantity of paper, the impacts associated with the production of paper products such as paper labels and cardboard packaging makes up 1–7% of every impact category for vaginal hysterectomies. Disposal of MSW to a landfill or to an autoclave facility prior to landfilling accounts for over 40% of eutrophication and 8% of noncarcinogenic impacts for all hysterectomy types.

Anesthetics

Anesthetics are potent greenhouse gases. Selection of anesthetic varies based on anesthesiologist preference, per routine, and, as such, the results reported here are the averages of all cases surveyed. Selection of anesthetic can drastically affect the footprint of hysterectomy, as shown with the large error bars for GHGs in Figure 3. On average, anesthetic gases contributed to a third of the greenhouse gas emissions of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomies and two-thirds of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies. For abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy, anesthetic use contributed to 98% of the ozone depletion potential. The types of inhalation anesthetics used, sevoflurane or desflurane either with or without nitrous oxide (N₂O) as a carrier gas, are themselves greenhouse gases with ozone depletion potential. Desflurane has a global warming potential 20 times that of sevoflurane, as shown in Figure 4. Intravenous propofol was administered in 4 vaginal cases, and is not a greenhouse gas. As such, greenhouse gas emissions for vaginal hysterectomy from anesthetics varied drastically from case to case, from as low as 0.001 kg CO₂-eq/case to 505 kg CO₂-eq/case.

Reusable Instruments

Reusable stainless steel instruments produce 8–25% of impacts for all hysterectomy types in the categories of smog, carcinogenic, noncarcinogenic, and ecotoxicity. They also account for 7–12% of respiratory impacts, acidification potential, and embodied energy of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies. For toxicity and human health categories, this is mainly due to the production of stainless steel instruments, whereas the treatment and sterilization of the instruments is the primary contributor to the other impact categories.

Energy

Natural gas and electricity use from all hysterectomies accounts for about 40% of smog, 15–40% of acidification, and 6–10% of noncarcingenic and ecotoxicity impacts for all hysterectomy types. Energy use contributes about 28% of cumulative energy demand in abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies, 9% for laparoscopic and 6% for robotic, as the materials used in the latter two hysterectomies have a higher embodied energy.

A majority of the energy impacts, over 70%, are caused by the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) in the OR. Electricity required to run the machines in the OR makes up 10–30% of every impact category analyzed depending on the hysterectomy type. Lighting in abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies accounts for about 8% more of their environmental impacts in all categories, but only 1% in laparoscopic and robotic procedures. This is due to minimal use of OR lighting during laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies.

DISCUSSION: IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Quantitative evaluations and data-driven solutions are needed to curb emissions and their resulting adverse health effects. Projecting the results of this study to the 500 000 cases of hysterectomy alone in the U.S. annually (assuming a mix of 40% abdominal, 20% vaginal, 30% laparoscopic, and 10% robotic (46)), the greenhouse gas emissions of U.S. hysterectomies is about 212 000 metric tons of CO₂-eq per year. There are over 51.4 million annual inpatient procedures in the U.S. (47) Although total numbers of open vs minimally invasive procedures are unknown, the trend is toward minimally invasive surgery that drives up the amount of pollution generated within the OR.

Results of this study reveal a number of opportunities to improve the environmental sustainability of current surgical procedures, though it should be noted that the results of this study should not be used to dictate clinical care. This study considered only the narrow boundaries of the intraoperative period, without consideration for postoperative length of stay, which may be included in future studies. The footprint of specific procedures reported in this study appear to be less (and therefore preferable), but this study does not account for factors such as length of stay and postsurgical resource use, which may result in different emissions profiles.

As mentioned earlier, there is no single method to reducing environmental impacts associated with healthcare services. This study identifies aspects of surgical approaches with large environmental footprints so that informed and targeted reduction strategies may be implemented and future medical developments may be designed to minimize emissions. Table 1 lists the components of hysterectomy that contribute the most to specific impact categories as well as potential strategies to reduce surgery-associated emissions.

Developing Best Practices and Training: Selection and Delivery of Anesthetics

Life cycle assessment and other sustainability tools have a role to play in identifying and developing best practices for minimizing emissions. For materials such as anesthetics, environmentally preferred substitutions already exist and are currently being used alongside options with larger impacts. By educating anesthesiologists and appropriate staff on environmentally preferred anesthetic choice and avoiding excessive fresh gas flow rates, the ozone depletion potential and greenhouse gas emissions of hysterectomies can be reduced 65–95% for abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies. Switching to propofol or other IV or regional anesthesia techniques where clinically indicated would reduce ODP 3% in laparoscopic and 28% in robotic hysterectomies.

Impacts in the Supply Chain: Packaging and Purchasing

Most single-use disposable tools enter the OR in multiple layers of packaging. On average, about 20% by weight (∼2 kg) of the municipal solid waste for each hysterectomy originated as paper, plastic, and glass packaging for surgical supplies. This does not include plastic bluewrap, which is used to demark sterilized custom packs. Rethinking packaging strategies to reduce materials could have a significant impact.

Table 1. Components of Hysterectomy Contributing Significantly to Environmental Impacts and Potential Impact Reduction Strategies, A = Abdominal, V = Vaginal, L = Laparoscopic, R = Robotic, all = All Hysterectomy Types

Single-use disposable materials and tools accounted for a majority of environmental impacts in nearly every category. Over 95% of the single-use material impacts resulted from the production or manufacture of the items. The disposable surgical instruments used during minimally invasive surgery, in particular, incur a significant environmental and monetary cost, and health care professionals should carefully consider the impact of using increasingly disposable instruments. Reprocessing of single-use medical devices for reuse has been advocated as a strategy for cost and waste reduction. This may significantly reduce the environmental impact of surgical devices, although likely not to the same degree as reusable instruments. Approximately 3000 U.S. hospitals actively engage in third-party medical device reprocessing services, and the reprocessing industry is valued at roughly $400 million. The reprocessing industry’s current valuation represents considerable growth within the past decade, where in 2000 the reprocessing industry was valued at $20 million. (48) It would be prudent to utilize LCA to compare single-use, reprocessed, and reusable versions to ascertain the preferable environmental and cost solutions for otherwise equivalent medical devices. (49)

Though a majority of a hysterectomy’s impacts may be the result of decisions made in the product manufacturing and robotics industries, healthcare providers can drive positive change through their collective purchasing power. (50) For example, traditional cotton growing practices release many known carcinogens and toxic chemicals into the soil, air, and water. Though a hospital consumes only a handful of OR towels and laparotomy pads in a single surgery (cotton products represent only 5–10% of MSW in hysterectomies), the continued production from virgin, traditionally farmed cotton results in a quarter to half of the human health toxicity and ecotoxicity impacts in every type of hysterectomy. Hospitals can pressure their group purchasing organization (GPO) or material suppliers to manufacture OR towels with a reduced footprint or an environmentally preferred fiber.

Future of Technologies in the Surgical Landscape

Laparoscopic and robotic surgeries are minimally invasive, leaving patients with smaller incisions, less pain, and faster recovery times than patients undergoing open procedures. Although advancing medical technologies often means better outcomes, current laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy also cost more and utilize more resources, especially packaging and plastics, and produce more waste, namely disposable electronic devices. The production of these disposable electronic devices results in significantly higher emissions related to ozone depletion, greenhouse gases, acidification, and respiratory impacts.

As technological innovation continues to improve medical care, more research should be done to ultimately reduce the environmental emissions and human health impacts of these technologies at each stage in their life cycles, including medical product design to close the circular loop of product emissions and environmental and public health concerns. Currently, medical product innovation and approvals are complex endeavors, especially in the U.S., with minimal or no incentives to reduce environmental burdens. Continuing research, such as this study, may create awareness for product designers, device manufacturers, and policy makers to enable or incentivize reprocessing, reusability, energy efficiency, and substitution of deleterious materials.

Healthcare is ready for more rigorous measurement of both greenhouse gas emissions and environmental performance. Future studies that accurately and scientifically evaluate potential solutions will help the healthcare industry strategically optimize its transition to a more sustainable system. Quantification tools such as life cycle assessment provide needed information about the source of environmental impacts and are a great asset for hospital decision-makers to set priorities for hospital and clinician practices, equipment upgrades, product sourcing priorities, and waste handling protocol. Across the whole healthcare industry, there is a profound opportunity to make healthcare services more efficient environmentally and economically without compromising safety or efficacy.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Life cycle inventory: database selection and allocation details, economic input-output LCA setup and LCIA, Monte Carlo analysis. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

es504719g_si_001.pdf (145.94 kb)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Corresponding Author
- Cassandra L. Thiel - Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, 153 Benedum Hall, 3700 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261, United States; Email: [email protected]
Authors
- Matthew Eckelman - Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, United States
- Richard Guido - Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States
- Matthew Huddleston - Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, 153 Benedum Hall, 3700 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261, United States
- Amy E. Landis - School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University P.O. Box 875306, Tempe, Arizona 85287, United States
- Jodi Sherman - Department of Anesthesiology, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, TMP 3, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, United States
- Scott O. Shrake - School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University P.O. Box 875306, Tempe, Arizona 85287, United States
- Noe Copley-Woods - Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States
- Melissa M. Bilec - Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, 153 Benedum Hall, 3700 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261, United States
Author Contributions
The paper was written through contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval to the final version of the paper. These authors contributed equally.
Funding
Financial support for the data collection and management of this project came from Grant Number ULI RR024153 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. Support for graduate student researchers came from Award No. 050434 from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT).
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgment

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The authors thank Judy Focareta, Lori D’Ambrosio, Leah Swanzy, and Cassandra Jurgens for their support of this project.

ABBREVIATIONS

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

CED	Cumulative Energy Demand
Magee	Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC
LCA	Life Cycle Assessment
MSW	Municipal Solid Waste
RMW	Regulated Medical Waste
GHG	Greenhouse Gas
SMS PP	Spunbound-meltblown-spunbound polypropylene
ODP	Ozone Depletion Potential
OR	Operating Room

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 50 other publications.

1
BEA. National Incomeand Product Accounts. www.bea.gov, 2011.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
2
Rudish, R.; Eckstein, A.; Vettori, E.; Purdy, L.; Qu, Y.; Elbel, G.; Dhawan, A.; Lee, J.; Jaber, H.; Yap, J.; Adao, V.; Hammett, S.; George, R.; Copeland, B.; Wada, Y.; Vega, G. M.; Morris, M. 2014 Global Health Care Outlook: Shared Challenges, Shared Opportunities; Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited: London, 2014.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
3
Pollard, A. S.; Taylor, T. J.; Fleming, L. E.; Stahl-Timmins, W.; Depledge, M. H.; Osborne, N. J. Mainstreaming carbon management in healthcare systems: A bottom-up modeling approach Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 47 (2) 678– 686
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
4
Hendron, R.; Leach, M.; Bonnema, E.; Shekhar, D.; Pless, S. Advanced Energy Retrofit Guide (AERG): Practical Ways to Improve Energy Performance; Healthcare Facilities (Book); National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, 2013.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
5
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2007 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS); U.S. EIA: Washington, DC, 2012; Table H5, Major Fuels Usage for Large Hospitals, 2007.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
6
U.S. EPA Profile of the Healthcare Industry; Report No. EPA/310-R-05-002; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2005.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
7
Freedonia Group. Disposable Medical Supplies: United States; Report No. FF40019; Freedonia Group: Cleveland, OH, 2014.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
8
Costello, A.; Montgomery, H.; Watts, N. Climate change: The challenge for healthcare professionals. BMJ [Br. Med. J.] 2013, 347.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
9
Kagoma, Y.; Stall, N.; Rubinstein, E.; Naudie, D. People, planet and profits: The case for greening operating rooms Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2012, 184 (17) 1905– 1911
Google Scholar
9
People, planet and profits: the case for greening operating rooms
Kagoma Yoan; Stall Nathan; Rubinstein Edward; Naudie Douglas
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne (2012), 184 (17), 1905-11 ISSN:.
There is no expanded citation for this reference.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC38novVSmsQ%253D%253D&md5=a51c118ad5e9109c23b226f410a71104
10
Townend, W. K.; Cheeseman, C. R. Guidelines for the evaluation and assessment of the sustainable use of resources and of wastes management at healthcare facilities Waste Manage. Res. 2005, 23 (5) 398– 408
Google Scholar
10
Guidelines for the evaluation and assessment of the sustainable use of resources and of wastes management at healthcare facilities
Townend William K; Cheeseman Christopher R
Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA (2005), 23 (5), 398-408 ISSN:0734-242X.
This paper presents guidelines that can be used by managers of healthcare facilities to evaluate and assess the quality of resources and waste management at their facilities and enabling the principles of sustainable development to be addressed. The guidelines include the following key aspects which need to be considered when completing an assessment. They are: (a) general management; (b) social issues; (c) health and safety; (d) energy and water use; (e) purchasing and supply; (f) waste management (responsibility, segregation, storage and packaging); (g) waste transport; (h) recycling and re-use; (i) waste treatment; and (j) final disposal. They identify actions required to achieve a higher level of performance which can readily be applied to any healthcare facility, irrespective of the local level of social, economic and environmental development. The guidelines are presented, and the characteristics of facilities associated with sustainable (level 4) and unsustainable (level 0) healthcare resource and wastes management are outlined. They have been used to assess a major London hospital, and this highlighted a number of deficiencies in current practice, including a lack of control over purchasing and supply, and very low rates of segregation of municipal solid waste from hazardous healthcare waste.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD2MrpsFWguw%253D%253D&md5=42970770c932aa47795927cd326106e9
11
Tudor, T. L.; Townend, W. K.; Cheeseman, C. R.; Edgar, J. E. An overview of arisings and large-scale treatment technologies for healthcare waste in the United Kingdom Waste Manage. Res. 2009, 27 (4) 374– 383
Google Scholar
11
An overview of arisings and large-scale treatment technologies for healthcare waste in the United Kingdom
Tudor Terry L; Townend William K; Cheeseman Christopher R; Edgar Jen E
Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA (2009), 27 (4), 374-83 ISSN:0734-242X.
This paper reviews the current generation and management of healthcare waste in the United Kingdom, with a focus on that produced from healthcare provision in the National Health Service. While the current capacities of large-scale off-site treatment systems are adequate, there are a number of logistical factors that must be considered in future. These include variations in arisings from each country and from various regions within each country, the age and location of treatment/disposal facilities, the quantities, types and sources of healthcare waste, and the impact of waste minimization and recycling strategies. Managing UK healthcare waste is a complex issue that requires the correct technologies and capacities to be available. With increasing quantities and costs there is urgent need for future planning, and healthcare waste issues need to be addressed from a UK-wide perspective. Holistic strategies need to incorporate both minimization and segregation, with treatment using a combination of incineration and alternatives treatment technologies. The need for more research and accurate data to provide an evidence-base for future decision-making is highlighted.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD1MvktFCntw%253D%253D&md5=140e33851c183851c48e339298b95fd6
12
Allen, M. R. Effective pollution prevention in healthcare environments J. Cleaner Prod. 2006, 14 (6–7) 610– 615
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
13
Zimmer, C. Minimum impact. Reducing the detrimental effects of hospital waste Health Facil. Manage. 2012, 25 (3) 43– 44
47
Google Scholar
13
Minimum impact. Reducing the detrimental effects of hospital waste
Zimmer Catherine
Health facilities management (2012), 25 (3), 43-4, 47 ISSN:0899-6210.
There is no expanded citation for this reference.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC38rms1Sktw%253D%253D&md5=ed1885e1144e3e2357b16d7b3aeb689f
14
Kwakye, G.; Brat, G. A.; Makary, M. A. Green surgical practices for health care Arch. Surg. (Chicago, IL, U. S.) 2011, 146 (2) 131– 136
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
15
Brown, L. H.; Buettner, P. G.; Canyon, D. V.; Crawford, J. M.; Judd, J. Estimating the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Australian ambulance services J. Cleaner Prod. 2012, 37, 135– 141
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
16
Shrake, S. O.; Thiel, C. L.; Landis, A. E.; Bilec, M. M. Life cycle assessment as a tool for improving service industry sustainability Potentials, IEEE 2012, 31 (1) 10– 15
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
17
Campion, N.; Thiel, C. L.; DeBlois, J.; Woods, N. C.; Landis, A. E.; Bilec, M. M. Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 425 (0) 191– 198
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
18
Karlsson, M.; Pigretti-Ohman, D. Climate impact of material consumption in the health care sector - Case study Region Scania Environ. Conscious Des. Inverse Manuf. 2005, 4, 724– 725
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
19
Sherman, J.; Le, C.; Lamers, V.; Eckelman, M. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetic drugs Anesth. Analg. (Hagerstown, MD, U. S.) 2012, 114 (5) 1086– 1090
Google Scholar
19
Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetic drugs
Sherman, Jodi; Le, Cathy; Lamers, Vanessa; Eckelman, Matthew
Anesthesia & Analgesia (Hagerstown, MD, United States) (2012), 114 (5), 1086-1090CODEN: AACRAT; ISSN:0003-2999. (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins)
Anesthesiologists must consider the entire life cycle of drugs in order to include environmental impacts into clin. decisions. In the present study we used life cycle assessment to examine the climate change impacts of 5 anesthetic drugs: sevoflurane, desflurane, isoflurane, nitrous oxide, and propofol. A full cradle-to-grave approach was used, encompassing resource extn., drug manufg., transport to health care facilities, drug delivery to the patient, and disposal or emission to the environment. At each stage of the life cycle, energy, material inputs, and emissions were considered, as well as use-specific impacts of each drug. The 4 inhalation anesthetics are greenhouse gases (GHGs), and so life cycle GHG emissions include waste anesthetic gases vented to the atm. and emissions (largely carbon dioxide) that arise from other life cycle stages. Desflurane accounts for the largest life cycle GHG impact among the anesthetic drugs considered here: 15 times that of isoflurane and 20 times that of sevoflurane on a per MAC-hour basis when administered in an O2/air admixt. GHG emissions increase significantly for all drugs when administered in an N2O/O2 admixt. For all of the inhalation anesthetics, GHG impacts are dominated by uncontrolled emissions of waste anesthetic gases. GHG impacts of propofol are comparatively quite small, nearly 4 orders of magnitude lower than those of desflurane or nitrous oxide. Unlike the inhaled drugs, the GHG impacts of propofol primarily stem from the electricity required for the syringe pump and not from drug prodn. or direct release to the environment. Our results reiterate previous published data on the GHG effects of these inhaled drugs, while providing a life cycle context. There are several practical environmental impact mitigation strategies. Desflurane and nitrous oxide should be restricted to cases where they may reduce morbidity and mortality over alternative drugs. Clinicians should avoid unnecessarily high fresh gas flow rates for all inhaled drugs. There are waste anesthetic gas capturing systems, and even in advance of reprocessed gas applications, strong consideration should be given to their use. From our results it appears likely that techniques other than inhalation anesthetics, such as total IV anesthesia, neuraxial, or peripheral nerve blocks, would be least harmful to the environment.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC38XlvFaksr8%253D&md5=045b518a92d126f23069f468c25ca834
20
Sherman, J.; Ryan, S. Ecological resposnibility in anesthesia practice Int. Anesthesiol. Clin. 2010, 48 (3) 139– 151
Google Scholar
20
Ecological responsibility in anesthesia practice
Sherman Jodi D; Ryan Susan
International anesthesiology clinics (2010), 48 (3), 139-51 ISSN:.
There is no expanded citation for this reference.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC3cnlvVOltQ%253D%253D&md5=5bee33b73f61a001620628369b39453f
21
U. S. Air Force Institute for Environment Safety and Occupational Health Risk Analysis. Medical waste incinerator waste management plan. http://airforcemedicine.afms.mil/idc/groups/public/documents/afms/ctb_033957.pdf, 2001.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
22
Goldberg, M. E.; Vekeman, D.; Torjman, M. C.; Seltzer, J. L.; Kynes, T. Medical waste in the environment: Do anesthesia personnel have a role to play? J. Clin. Anesth. 1996, 8 (6) 475– 479
Google Scholar
22
Medical waste in the environment: do anesthesia personnel have a role to play?
Goldberg M E; Vekeman D; Torjman M C; Seltzer J L; Kynes T
Journal of clinical anesthesia (1996), 8 (6), 475-9 ISSN:0952-8180.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To conduct a feasibility study of the mechanics of recycling single-use anesthesia breathing systems and practices of anesthesiologists and nurse-anesthetists in a tri-state region. STUDY DESIGN: Two-part, open, prospective analysis using pre-printed questionnaire and cost/time analysis of labor and materials. SETTING: Questionnaire sent to 413 anesthesiology departments in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, and hospital/recycling facility for evaluation of time and cost. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Time to disassemble and sort the breathing circuits, analysis of costs and obtainable income from byproducts of recycling, and standard survey questionnaire concerning demographic characteristics of respondents and individual department/hospital practitioners. Data analysis included analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Pilot analysis: Sorting of circuits to economic component required ten minutes at an average cost of $1.60 Value of scraps obtainable was $3.44, leaving a gross margin of $1.84 for a box of 18 circuits. Benefit analysis: Extended reduction in the regulated medical waste in our operating room of 16,875 lb, saving $4,387.50 per year. With generation of revenue from scrap, the net gain is $5,994.64 per yr. Questionnaire: Majority (83%) of departments polled would participate in recycling implemented by suppliers. Most respondents would not consider (58%) recycling unless mandated by law. CONCLUSION: The program described is cost-effective and environmentally beneficial.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK2s%252Fis1Gjuw%253D%253D&md5=dbf3b56256e375b09a3f0953b72354f4
23
Lee, B. K.; Ellenbecker, M. J.; Moure-Eraso, R. Analyses of the recycling potential of medical plastic wastes Waste Manage. 2002, 22 (5) 461– 470
Google Scholar
23
Analyses of the recycling potential of medical plastic wastes
Lee, Byeong-Kyu; Ellenbecker, Michael J.; Moure-Eraso, Rafael
Waste Management (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (2002), 22 (5), 461-470CODEN: WAMAE2; ISSN:0956-053X. (Elsevier Science B.V.)
The recycling potential of plastic wastes from health care facilities was investigated. We detd. that the recycling potential of plastics generated in hospital cafeterias is much greater than from other departments.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD38XjvVelsb4%253D&md5=062e9d23b51ac67f1a3047842cd889af
24
Whiteman, M.; Hillis, S.; Jamieson, D.; Morrow, B.; Podgornik, M.; Brett, K.; Marchbanks, P. Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000–2004 Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2008, 63 (5) 304
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
25
US news and world report top-ranked hospitals for gynecology. http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings/gynecology (5/28/ 2013) .
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
26
ISO. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and framework; ISO 14040; International Organization for Standardization: Switzerland, 1997.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
27
ISO Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and Guidelines; ISO 14044:2006; International Organization for Standardization: Switzerland, 2006.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
28
Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. Economicinput-output life cycle assessment (EIO-LCA) US 2002 (428) model. http://www.eiolca.net (April 18, 2013) .
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
29
NREL. Life-Cycle Inventory Database (USLCI). http://www.nrel.gov/lci/database/.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
30
Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Heck, T.; Hellweg, S.; Hischier, R.; Nemecek, T.; Rebitzer, G. The ecoinvent database: Overview and methodological framework Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2005, 10 (1) 3– 9
Google Scholar
30
The ecoinvent database: overview and methodological framework
Frischknecht, Rolf; Jungbluth, Niels; Althaus, Hans-Joerg; Doka, Gabor; Dones, Roberto; Heck, Thomas; Hellweg, Stefanie; Hischier, Roland; Nemecek, Thomas; Rebitzer, Gerald; Spielmann, Michael
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2005), 10 (1), 3-9CODEN: IJLCFF; ISSN:0948-3349. (Ecomed Publishers AG & Co. KG)
Introduction: This paper provides an overview on the content of the ecoinvent database and of selected metholodogical issues applied on the life cycle inventories implemented in the ecoinvent database. Goal, Scope and Background: In the year 2000, several Swiss Federal Offices and research institutes of the ETH domain agreed to a joint effort to harmonize and update life cycle inventory (LCI) data for its use in life cycle assessment (LCA). With the ecoinvent database and its actual data v1.1, a consistent set of more than 2500 product and service LCIs is now available. Method: Nearly all process datasets are transparently documented on the level of unit process inputs and outputs. Methodol. approaches have been applied consistently throughout the entire database content and thus guarantee for a coherent set of LCI data. This is particularly true for market and trade modeling (see, for example, electricity modeling), for the treatment of multioutput and of recycling processes, but also for the recording and reporting of elementary flows. The differentiation of diam. size for particulate matter emissions, for instance, allows for a more comprehensive impact assessment of human health effects. Data quality is quant. reported in terms of std. deviations of the amts. of input and output flows. In many cases qual. indicators are reported addnl. on the level of each individual input and output. The information sources used vary from extensive statistical works to individual (point) measurements or assumptions derived from process descriptions. However, all datasets passed the same quality control procedure and all information relevant and necessary to judge the suitability of a dataset in a certain context are provided in the database. Data documentation and exchange is based on the EcoSpold data format, which complies with the tech. specification ISO/TS 14048. Free access to process information via the Internet helps the user to judge the appropriateness of a dataset. Concluding Remarks: The existence of the ecoinvent database proves that it is possible and feasible to build up a large interlinked system of LCI unit processes. The project work proved to be demanding in terms of co-ordination efforts required and consent identification. One main characteristic of the database is its transparency in reporting to enable individual assessment of data appropriateness and to support the plurality in methodol. approaches. Outlook: Further work on the ecoinvent database may comprise work on the database content (new or more detailed datasets covering existing or new economic sectors), LCI (modeling) methodol., the structure and features of the database system (e.g. extension of Monte Carlo simulation to the impact assessment phase) or improvements in ecoinvent data supply and data query. Furthermore, the deepening and building up of international co-operations in LCI data collection and supply is in the focus of future activities.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2MXmsFektw%253D%253D&md5=3376351179c73b8708d791075d8ac24f
31
U.S. EPA. eGRID2010, Version 1.1; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2007.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
32
Ponder, C. S. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis of Medical Textiles and Their Role in Prevention of Nosocomial Infections; North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2009.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
33
McGain, F.; McAlister, S.; McGavin, A.; Story, D. A life cycle assessment of reusable and single-use central venous catheter insertion kits Anesth. Analg. (Hagerstown, MD, U. S.) 2012, 114 (5) 1073– 1080
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
34
Dettenkofer, M.; Grießhammer, R.; Scherrer, M.; Daschner, F. Life-cycle assessment of single-use versus reusable surgical drapes (cellulose/polyethylene - Mixed cotton system) Der Chirurg 1999, 70 (4) 485– 492
Google Scholar
34
Life-cycle assessment of single-use versus reusable surgical drapes (cellulose/polyethylene-mixed cotton system)
Dettenkofer M; Griesshammer R; Scherrer M; Daschner F
Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen (1999), 70 (4), 485-91; discussion 491-2 ISSN:0009-4722.
Surgical drapes made of cotton are under increasing competition with various disposable products and reusable draping systems (e.g., made of synthetic fabrics like polyester). When making a choice to use one of these medical devices in practical surgery, major aspects like handling, hygienic safety and costs, but also environmental effects have to be taken into account. In this study a mixed system for patient drapes (reusable cotton drapes combined with a reduced set of impermeable single-use drapes made of cellulose/polyethylene) was compared to a system that is only based on single-use drapes with regard to ecology [life-cycle assessment (LCA)]. The medical literature was reviewed to assess important medical aspects of the use of patient drapes, resulting in the statement that there are no conclusive arguments to support a clear hygienic superiority of one of these alternatives. Based on the conditions assumed and stated, the results of the LCA indicate that the mixed draping system is associated with two times more total energy consumption. In addition, more water is needed and more CO2 emissions are produced. However, draping with the single-use product results in more clinical waste. Regarding water pollution no system proved superior. It is difficult to compare and weigh various environmental aspects like the polluting cultivation of cotton in distant countries (reusable drapes) and the higher figure of transportation necessary to deliver the single-use product within Germany. It is an important disadvantage of the mixed system that it combines the ecological burden of both cotton drapes and the single-use alternative.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK1M3otlaltw%253D%253D&md5=def0f9b580ce9433ea16944b86e7769f
35
Bajpai, D.; Tyagi, V. Laundry detergents: An overview J. Oleo Sci. 2007, 56 (7) 327– 340
Google Scholar
35
Laundry detergents: an overview
Bajpai, Divya; Tyagi, V. K.
Journal of Oleo Science (2007), 56 (7), 327-340CODEN: JOSOAP; ISSN:1345-8957. (Japan Oil ChemistsÏ Society)
A review. Nowadays laundry detergents are becoming increasingly popular as they can be metered automatically into the washing machine, impart softness, antistaticness, resiliency to fabrics, mild to eyes and skins and shows good dispersibility in water. Because it is consumed when it is used, the sale of laundry detergent is a rather large business. There are many different kinds or brands of laundry detergent sold, many of them claiming some special qualities as selling points. A Laundry detergent compn. is a formulated mixt. of raw materials that can be classified into different types based on their properties and function in the final product. The different classes of raw materials are surfactants, builders, bleaching agents, enzymes, and minors which remove dirt, stain, and soil from surfaces or textiles gave them pleasant feel and odor. The physico-chem. properties of surfactants make them suitable for laundry purposes. Laundry detergent has traditionally been a powd. or granular solid, but the use of liq. laundry detergents has gradually increased over the years, and these days use of liq. detergent equals or even exceeds use of solid detergent. This review paper describes the history, compn., types, mechanism, consumption, environmental effects and consumption of laundry detergents.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2sXntlKnu7g%253D&md5=2a528a729a5dd652bc6b3e4f7a62999d
36
Barrie, D. How hospital linen and laundry services are provided J. Hosp. Infect. 1994, 27 (3) 219– 235
Google Scholar
36
How hospital linen and laundry services are provided
Barrie D
The Journal of hospital infection (1994), 27 (3), 219-35 ISSN:0195-6701.
Hospitals provide clean linen for patients and staff. This article describes the laundering process, laundry equipment, how used hospital linen differs from that of other large organizations and the Department of Health guidance on handling and laundering hospital linen. It reviews how hospital linen contracts are awarded and the responsibilities of the team which evaluates them. Methods of microbiological testing of laundered linen and the interpretation of the results are considered. The properties of different fabrics available for use in operating theatres are summarized. Measures to prevent infection and injury to staff handling used linen are given.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK2M%252Flt1GnsA%253D%253D&md5=a953ff0f8b74d5c698f29c8ba029c268
37
Blackburn, R.; Payne, J. Life cycle analysis of cotton towels: Impact of domestic laundering and recommendations for extending periods between washing Green Chem. 2004, 6 (7) G59– G61
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
38
Sulbaek Andersen, M. P.; Sander, S. P.; Nielsen, O. J.; Wagner, D. S.; Sanford, T. J.; Wallington, T. J. Inhalation anaesthetics and climate change Br. J. Anaesth. 2010, 105 (6) 760– 766
Google Scholar
38
Inhalation anaesthetics and climate change
Sulbaek Andersen M P; Sander S P; Nielsen O J; Wagner D S; Sanford T J Jr; Wallington T J
British journal of anaesthesia (2010), 105 (6), 760-6 ISSN:.
BACKGROUND: Although the increasing abundance of CO(2) in our atmosphere is the main driver of the observed climate change, it is the cumulative effect of all forcing agents that dictate the direction and magnitude of the change, and many smaller contributors are also at play. Isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane are widely used inhalation anaesthetics. Emissions of these compounds contribute to radiative forcing of climate change. To quantitatively assess the impact of the anaesthetics on the forcing of climate, detailed information on their properties of heat (infrared, IR) absorption and atmospheric lifetimes are required. METHODS: We have measured the IR spectra of these anaesthetics and conducted calculations of their contribution to radiative forcing of climate change recognizing the important fact that radiative forcing is strongly dependent on the wavelength of the absorption features. RESULTS: Radiative efficiencies of 0.453, 0.469, and 0.351 W m(-2) ppb(-1) and global warming potentials (GWPs) of 510, 1620, and 210 (100 yr time horizon) were established for isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the derived 100 yr GWPs, the average climate impact per anaesthetic procedure at the University of Michigan is the same as the emission of ∼22 kg CO(2). We estimate that the global emissions of inhalation anaesthetics have a climate impact which is comparable with that from the CO(2) emissions from one coal-fired power plant or 1 million passenger cars.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC3cbnsFCjsQ%253D%253D&md5=0a4b121b3ff63ab3dd55cf7c7e8e40f6
39
Lenzen, M. Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments: Implications for decision-making Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11 (3) 189– 199
Google Scholar
39
Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments. Implications for decision-making
Lenzen, Manfred
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2006), 11 (3), 189-199CODEN: IJLCFF; ISSN:0948-3349. (Ecomed Publishers AG & Co. KG)
Many disciplines, amongst them LCIA, environmental impact and external cost assessments, are often faced with evaluating trade-offs between two or more alternative options in terms of a range of incommensurable indicators. Using process modeling and valuation, these indicators are quantified at mid- or endpoint levels. Recent discussion amongst LCA experts showed that because of the mutually exclusive aspects of uncertainty and relevance, the midpoint/endpoint debate is controversial and difficult to reconcile. This article is aimed at a more quant. anal. of mid- and endpoint impacts, and the implications of uncertainty for decision-making. The consequences for decision-making of uncertainties of endpoints are analyzed quant. for the example of ExternE results, by employing statistical hypothesis testing. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is then used to demonstrate the use of multi-criteria techniques at midpoint levels. Statistical hypothesis testing at the end-point level shows that for the ExternE example, probabilities of mistakenly favoring one alternative over another when they are in reality indistinguishable can be as high as 80%. Therefore, the best est. of external cost is inadequate for most policy making purposes. Indicators at midpoint levels are more certain, but since they are only 'proxy attributes', they carry a hidden uncertainty in their relevance. If endpoint information is too uncertain to allow a decision to be made with reasonable confidence, then the assessment can be carried out in midpoint terms. However, midpoint indicators are generally further removed from people's experience, and less relevant to the question that people actually want to solve. Nevertheless, if this ultimate question is unanswerable (within the certainty required by the decision-maker), a decision can be made on the basis of stakeholders' subjective judgments about the more certain midpoint levels. The crucial point is that these judgments are able to intuitively incorporate many aspects that impact modeling and valuation has trouble quantifying, such as perceived risk, distribution of burdens and benefits, equity, ethical, moral, religious and political beliefs and principles, immediacy and reversibility of potential impacts, voluntariness, controllability and familiarity of exposure, or perceived incompleteness of human knowledge.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD28Xls1Cktbg%253D&md5=8926e64b5da053507dc584dd7b4503a6
40
Bilec, M.; Ries, R.; Matthews, H. S.; Sharrard, A. L. Example of a hybrid life-cycle assessment of construction processes J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2006, 12 (4) 207– 215
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
41
BLS. Producer Price Index Industry Data; U.S. Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics: Washington, DC, 2013.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
42
Bare, J. C.; Norris, G. A.; Pennington, D. W.; McKone, T. TRACI: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts J. Ind. Ecol. 2003, 6 (3–4) 49– 78
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
43
Frischknecht R, J. N., Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods; Swiss Centre for LCI.: Duebendorf, CH, 2003.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
44
Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.; Doka, G.; Heck, T.; Hellweg, S.; Hischier, R.; Nemecek, T.; Rebitzer, G.; Spielmann, M.Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods, v2.0; Ecoinvent Report No. 3; Ecoinvent: Zurich, 2007.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
45
Tieszen, M. E.; Gruenberg, J. C. A quantitative, qualitative, and critical assessment of surgical waste: Surgeons venture through the trash can J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1992, 267 (20) 2765– 2768
Google Scholar
45
A quantitative, qualitative, and critical assessment of surgical waste. Surgeons venture through the trash can
Tieszen M E; Gruenberg J C
JAMA (1992), 267 (20), 2765-8 ISSN:0098-7484.
OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the surgical waste produced from several common surgical procedures, define categories of waste that might be readily separated for alternative disposal practices or substitution, and determine the change in surgical waste output that elimination or alternative handling methods may effect. DESIGN: A case series evaluating the surgical waste from five types of surgical procedures including operations of the back, heart, abdomen, hip and knee, and herniorrhaphies, prospectively identified and allocated at the availability of the investigator. SETTING: A single tertiary community teaching hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: Weight, volume, and percentage of disposable linen, paper, and plastic plus miscellaneous material from surgical waste with a later subset separating plastics from miscellaneous items to completely identify all categories. RESULTS: Surgical waste weighing 610.5 lb (274.7 kg) and occupying 171.6 cu ft (5.1 m3) from 27 cases was examined. Disposable linens accounted for 39% of the weight; paper, 7%; plastic, 26%; and miscellaneous waste, 27%. By volume, disposable linen and paper accounted for 69%; plastic, 23%; and miscellaneous waste, 7%. Disposable linen, paper, and recyclable plastic accounted for 73% +/- 7% (mean +/- SD) by weight and 93% +/- 4% by volume of total surgical waste. CONCLUSION: Nationally, annual surgical waste from these five procedures weighs 5.1 x 10(7) lb (2.3 x 10(7) kg) and occupies 1.4 x 10(7) cu ft (4.0 x 10(5) m3). By using reusable linen products and engaging in recycling methods currently available and feasible, we estimate that weight reductions of 73% and volume reductions of 93% in surgical waste are possible.
>> More from SciFinder ^®
https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK383ltF2gug%253D%253D&md5=4f527282ff05b3c0ae00cdfe079c45ee
46
Wright, J. D.; Ananth, C. V.; Lewin, S. L.; Burke, W. M.; Lu, Y.-S.; Neugut, A. I.; Herzog, T. J.; Hershman, D. L. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease JAMA 2013, 309 (7) 689– 698
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
47
U.S. CDC. Number of all-listed procedures for dischargesfrom short-stay hospitals, by procedure category and age: United States,2010. In CDC/NCHS National Hospital Discharge Survey; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Washington, DC, 2010.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
48
AMDR. Third-Party Medical Device Reprocessing; Association of Medical Devices Reprocessors: Washington, DC, 2012.
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
49
Eckelman, M.; Mosher, M.; Gonzalez, A.; Sherman, J. Comparative life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable laryngeal mask airways Anesth. Analg. (Hagerstown, MD, U. S.) 2012, 114 (5) 1067– 1072
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.
50
Kaiser, B.; Eagan, P. D.; Shaner, H. Solutions to health care waste: Life-cycle thinking and “green” purchasing Environ. Health Perspect. 2001, 109 (3) 205– 207
Google Scholar
There is no corresponding record for this reference.

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 261 publications.

Jingcheng Yang, Linlin Duan, Shitong Peng, Reinout Heijungs, Xinyi Geng, Peng Wang, Wei-Qiang Chen, Yi Yang. Toward More Realistic Estimates of Product Displacement in Life Cycle Assessment. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (37) , 16237-16247. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c04006
Ling Ji, Yongyang Wang, Yulei Xie, Ming Xu, Yanpeng Cai, Shengnan Fu, Liang Ma, Xin Su. Potential Life-Cycle Environmental Impacts of the COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Test. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (18) , 13398-13407. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c04039
Jochem Kaas, Marit Verbeek, Wilson W.L. Li, Stefan M. van der Heide, Ad F.T.M. Verhagen, René Monshouwer, Hugo R.W. Touw, Johan Bussink, Erik van der Bijl, Tim Stobernack. Climate impact of early-stage NSCLC treatment: A comparison between radiotherapy and surgery using Life Cycle Assessment. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2025, 202 , 110601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110601
Kimberley J. Anneveldt, Ingrid M. Nijholt, Joke M. Schutte, Wouter J. K. Hehenkamp, Sebastiaan Veersema, Judith A. F. Huirne, Martijn F. Boomsma. Waste analysis and energy use estimation during MR-HIFU treatment: first steps towards calculating total environmental impact. Insights into Imaging 2024, 15 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-024-01655-2
Chantelle Rizan. Environmental impact of hybrid (reusable/single-use) ports versus single-use equivalents in robotic surgery. Journal of Robotic Surgery 2024, 18 (1) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-01899-6
Faisal N. Masud, Farzan Sasangohar, Iqbal Ratnani, Sahar Fatima, Marco Antonio Hernandez, Teal Riley, Jason Fischer, Atiya Dhala, Megan E. Gooch, Konya Keeling-Johnson, Jukrin Moon, Jean-Louis Vincent. Past, present, and future of sustainable intensive care: narrative review and a large hospital system experience. Critical Care 2024, 28 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04937-9
Syka Iqbal, Amelia Karia, Damon Kamming, Daniel Herron, Luke O’Shea, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros. Anaesthesia and climate change: time to wake up? A rapid qualitative appraisal exploring the views of anaesthetic practitioners regarding the transition to TIVA and the reduction of desflurane. BMC Anesthesiology 2024, 24 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02693-5
Noe Woods, Alexandra I. Melnyk, Pamela Moalli. Waste not want not: the story of surgical trash. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2024, 36 (6) , 444-449. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000992
Andrea J. MacNeill, Chantelle Rizan, Jodi D. Sherman. Improving sustainability and mitigating the environmental impact of anaesthesia and surgery along the perioperative journey: a narrative review. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2024, 133 (6) , 1397-1409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.05.042
Annette Eidmann, Felicitas Geiger, Tizian Heinz, Axel Jakuscheit, Denitsa Docheva, Konstantin Horas, Ioannis Stratos, Maximilian Rudert. Our Impact on Global Warming. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2024, 106 (21) , 1971-1977. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.24.00212
Zeinab Mousania, Darpan Kayastha, Ryan A. Rimmer, John D. Atkinson. A cradle‐to‐grave life cycle assessment of the endoscopic sinus surgery considering materials, energy, and waste. International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology 2024, 9 https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.23474
Rebecca Hodnett, Megan Murphy, Adam Williams, Naomi Slator, Sarah Love-Jones, Crispin Wigfield. Towards net-zero operating in neurosurgery. British Journal of Neurosurgery 2024, 104 , 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2024.2418931
Fatima Ali, , Fatima Ali, Rachel Abbott, Aaron Wernham, Yasmin Nikookam, William Hunt, Sophie Holloran, Catriona Chaolin, Eshen Ang, Maria Charalambides, Ashima Lowe, Luke Brindley, Christopher Bower, Sandeep Varma, Minh Lam, David Veitch, Hilmi Recica, Wen Ai Woo, Simon Tso, Claire Doyle, Aaron Wernham, Rachel Abbott. Environmental sustainability in dermatological surgery. Part 1: reducing carbon intensity. Clinical and Experimental Dermatology 2024, 62 https://doi.org/10.1093/ced/llae434
Muireann Keating, Catherine de Blacam. Considering the Environmental Impact of Cleft Lip and Palate Surgery. The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal 2024, 17 https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656241290065
Amanda E. Dilger, Duncan A. Meiklejohn, John P. Bent, Neelima Tummala, Regan W. Bergmark, M. Lauren Lalakea. Climate change and environmental sustainability in otolaryngology: A state-of-the-art review. The Surgeon 2024, 22 (5) , 270-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2024.06.007
Conor McNamee, Ana Rakovac, Derek T. Cawley. Sustainable surgical practices: A comprehensive approach to reducing environmental impact. The Surgeon 2024, 22 (5) , 253-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2023.08.007
Allison L. Swiecki-Sikora, Mariel V. Becker, Laura M. Harbin, Elizabeth Knapp, Rashmi T. Nair, Marcelo I. Guzman, David A. Atwood, Syed Z. Ali, Charles S. Dietrich. Environmental sustainability in gynecologic oncology. Gynecologic Oncology Reports 2024, 55 , 101499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2024.101499
Mieke Delameilleure, Stefan Timmerman, Cindy Vandoren, Ashleigh Ledger, Nancy Vansteenkiste, Kobe Dewilde, Ann-Sophie Page, Susanne Housmans, Thierry Van den Bosch, Jan Deprest, Wouter Froyman. Approaches for hysterectomy and implementation of robot-assisted surgery in benign gynaecological disease: A cost analysis study in a large university hospital. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2024, 301 , 105-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.07.060
Bright Huo, M. M. M. Eussen, Stefania Marconi, Shaneeta M. Johnson, Nader Francis, Wendelyn M. Oslock, Nana Marfo, Oleksii Potapov, Ricardo J. Bello, Robert B. Lim, Jonathan Vandeberg, Ryan P. Hall, Adnan Alseidi M. D. EdM, Manuel Sanchez-Casalongue, Yewande R. Alimi, Andrea Pietrabissa, Alberto Arezzo, Maximos Frountzas, Vittoria Bellato, Paul Barach, Miran Rems, Sheetal Nijihawan, Tejas S. Sathe, Benjamin Miller, Sarah Samreen, Jimmy Chung, N. D. Bouvy, Patricia Sylla. Scoping review for the SAGES EAES joint collaborative on sustainability in surgical practice. Surgical Endoscopy 2024, 38 (10) , 5483-5504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11141-x
Reed A. Omary, Thomas M. Grist. The Translational Medicine of 2030: Bedside to Biosphere. American Journal of Roentgenology 2024, 223 (4) https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.24.31562
Ludmilla Pillay, Kenneth D Winkel, Timothy Kariotis. Developing the green operating room: exploring barriers and opportunities to reducing operating room waste. Medical Journal of Australia 2024, 221 (5) , 279-284. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.52394
Daniel Hu, Marina Hahn, David Dorfman, Kyle Denison Martin, Katelyn Moretti. The financial and environmental impact of unopened medical supplies discarded in the emergency department. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2024, 83 , 109-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2024.06.022
Gabrielle Stevenin, Jennifer Canonge, Marianne Gervais, Antonio Fiore, Fabien Lareyre, Joseph Touma, Pascal Desgranges, Juliette Raffort, Jean Sénémaud. e-Health and environmental sustainability in vascular surgery. Seminars in Vascular Surgery 2024, 37 (3) , 333-341. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2024.08.005
Aoife Ryan, Eleanor West, Alexandra Matchwick, Elspeth Lederer, JM Tom Pierce. Estimation of carbon emissions associated with tibial plateau levelling osteotomies in 10 dogs. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia 2024, 52 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaa.2024.09.007
Eva S. Cohen, Dionne S. Kringos, Lisanne H.J.A. Kouwenberg, Nicolaas H. Sperna Weiland, Cristina Richie, Johanna W.M. Aarts, Wouter J.K. Hehenkamp. Patient perspectives on climate friendly healthcare: an exploratory study in obstetrics and gynaecology. Patient Education and Counseling 2024, 302 , 108427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2024.108427
Shaneeta M. Johnson, Stefania Marconi, Manuel Sanchez-Casalongue, Nader Francis, Bright Huo, Adnan Alseidi, Yewande R. Alimi, Andrea Pietrabissa, Alberto Arezzo, Maximos Frountzas, Vittoria Bellato, Oleksii Potapov, Paul Barach, Miran Rems, Ricardo J. Bello, Sheetal Nijhawan, Wendelyn M. Oslock, Tejas S. Sathe, Ryan P. Hall, Benjamin Miller, Sarah Samreen, Jimmy Chung, Nana Marfo, Robert B. Lim, Jonathan Vandeberg, Myrthe M. Eussen, Nicole D. Bouvy, Patricia Sylla. Sustainability in surgical practice: a collaborative call toward environmental sustainability in operating rooms. Surgical Endoscopy 2024, 38 (8) , 4127-4137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-10962-0
Jenny H. Chang, Kimberly P. Woo, Nathalia Silva de Souza Lima Cano, Melissa M. Bilec, Maya Camhi, Alexandra I. Melnyk, Abby Gross, R. Matthew Walsh, Sofya H. Asfaw, Ilyssa O. Gordon, Benjamin T. Miller. Does reusable mean green? Comparison of the environmental impact of reusable operating room bed covers and lift sheets versus single-use. The Surgeon 2024, 22 (4) , 236-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2024.05.003
Elissa Trieu, Laura C. Ramirez-Caban, Marie E. Shockley. Review of sustainable practices for the gynecology operating room. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2024, 36 (4) , 324-329. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000965
Aya Mohr-Sasson, Madison Aycock, Noel Higgason, Mason Hui, Asha Bhalwal, Randa Jalloul, Mateo G. Leon, Olivia Dziadek, Alvaro Montealegre. Excess use of surgical supplies in minimally invasive benign gynecology surgery: an observational study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2024, 231 (2) , 273.e1-273.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.008
Matthieu Jabaudon, Bhadrish Vallabh, H. Peter Bacher, Rafael Badenes, Franz Kehl. Balancing patient needs with environmental impacts for best practices in general anesthesia: Narrative review and clinical perspective. Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine 2024, 43 (4) , 101389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accpm.2024.101389
Benjamin Press, Michael Jalfon, Daniel Solomon, Adam Benjamin Hittelman. Clinical and environmental considerations for neonatal, office-based circumcisions compared with operative circumcisions. Frontiers in Urology 2024, 4 https://doi.org/10.3389/fruro.2024.1380154
Ian D. Engler, Frances L. Koback, Andrew J. Curley. Value-Based, Environmentally Sustainable Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery. Clinics in Sports Medicine 2024, 43 (3) , 355-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2023.08.004
Grace I. Filley, Darpan Kayastha, Wesley Hayes, Saral Mehra, Jodi D. Sherman, Matthew J. Eckelman. Environmental Impact of a Direct Laryngoscopy: Opportunities for Pollution Mitigation. The Laryngoscope 2024, 134 (7) , 3206-3214. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.31341
Hiroyuki Nakarai, Cole Kwas, Eric Mai, Nishtha Singh, Bo Zhang, John C. Clohisy, Robert K. Merrill, Anthony Pajak, Jerry Du, Gregory S. Kazarian, Austin C. Kaidi, Justin T. Samuel, Sheeraz Qureshi, Matthew E. Cunningham, Francis C. Lovecchio, Han Jo Kim. What Is the Carbon Footprint of Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery?. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024, 13 (13) , 3731. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13133731
Anangsha Kumar, Kathryn Hunt, Manju Nair, Alice Clack. Women's health, the climate crisis and the pathway to a net‐zero health system. The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist 2024, 26 (3) , 117-122. https://doi.org/10.1111/tog.12934
Lowell Leow, John Kit Chung Tam, Poh Pei Kee, Amanda Zain. Healthcare sustainability in cardiothoracic surgery. ANZ Journal of Surgery 2024, 94 (6) , 1059-1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.18899
Bani Bandana Ganguly, Shouvik Ganguly, Nitin N. Kadam. MIC accident: lesson may guide for evaluation of genotoxic potential of the industrial chemicals for prevention of industrial accidents. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2024, 31 (28) , 40694-40703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-28681-9
Jasper M. Kampman, Jeroen Hermanides, Markus W. Hollmann, Coenraad N. Gilhuis, Wouter AH. Bloem, Stefan Schraag, Lorenzo Pradelli, Sjoerd Repping, Nicolaas H. Sperna Weiland. Mortality and morbidity after total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. eClinicalMedicine 2024, 72 , 102636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102636
Katie E Lichter, Kiley Charbonneau, Jacqueline R Lewy, Julie R Bloom, Rachel Shenker, Ali Sabbagh, Junzo Chino, Anna Rodrigues, Jason Hearn, Surbhi Grover, Ren-Dih Sheu, Alon Witztum, Muhammad Mustafa Qureshi, Sue S Yom, Chirjiv Anand, Cassandra L Thiel, Osama Mohamad. Quantification of the environmental impact of radiotherapy and associated secondary human health effects: a multi-institutional retrospective analysis and simulation. The Lancet Oncology 2024, 25 (6) , 790-801. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00148-7
Tamalika Sanyal, Indraneel Rakshit, Pritha Bhattacharjee. Green healthcare: initiatives and adaptations for sustainable future. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2024, 43 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04957-z
Raanan Meyer, Clarissa Niino, Rebecca Schneyer, Kacey Hamilton, Matthew T. Siedhoff, Kelly N. Wright. Surgical Field Separation in Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2024, 49 https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005596
Zeynep Or, Anna-Veera Seppänen. The role of the health sector in tackling climate change: A narrative review. Health Policy 2024, 143 , 105053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105053
Nicole Kasia Stachura, Sukham K Brar, Jacob Davidson, Claire A Wilson, Celia Dann, Mike Apostol, John Vecchio, Shannon Bilodeau, Anna Gunz, Diana Catalina Casas-Lopez, Ruediger Noppens, Ken Leslie, Julie E Strychowsky. Exploring the Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions of Hospital Staff and Patients on Environmental Sustainability in the Operating Room: Quality Improvement Survey Study (Preprint). 2024https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.59790
Rita Issa, Callum Forbes, Catherine Baker, Matt Morgan, Kate Womersley, Bob Klaber, Elaine Mulcahy, Rachel Stancliffe. Sustainability is critical for future proofing the NHS. BMJ 2024, , e079259. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-079259
Maya Whittaker, Jennifer C. Davies, Alexandra Sargent, Matt Sawyer, Emma J. Crosbie. A comparison of the carbon footprint of alternative sampling approaches for cervical screening in the UK : A descriptive study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2024, 131 (5) , 699-708. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17722
Eva Sayone Cohen, Lisanne H. J. A. Kouwenberg, Kate S. Moody, Nicolaas H. Sperna Weiland, Dionne Sofia Kringos, Anne Timmermans, Wouter J. K. Hehenkamp. Environmental sustainability in obstetrics and gynaecology: A systematic review. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2024, 131 (5) , 555-567. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17637
Kim E. van Nieuwenhuizen, Ingena G. I. A. Both, Petra J. Porte, Anne C. van der Eijk, Frank Willem Jansen. Environmental sustainability and gynaecological surgery: Which factors influence behaviour? An interview study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2024, 131 (5) , 716-724. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17709
Hendrik Drinhaus, Jorrit Drinhaus, Christine Schumacher, Michael J. Schramm, Wolfgang A. Wetsch. Electricity consumption of anesthesia workstations and potential emission savings by avoiding standby. Die Anaesthesiologie 2024, 73 (4) , 244-250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-024-01388-3
Nicola de’Angelis, Christel Conso, Giorgio Bianchi, Ana Gabriela Barría Rodríguez, Francesco Marchegiani, Maria Clotilde Carra, Charlotte Lafont, Florence Canouï-Poitrine, Karem Slim, Patrick Pessaux. Systematic review of carbon footprint of surgical procedures. Journal of Visceral Surgery 2024, 161 (2) , 7-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2023.03.002
Karem Slim, Gilles Tilmans, Bob Valéry Occéan, Chadly Dziri, Bruno Pereira, Michel Canis. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancers. Journal of Visceral Surgery 2024, 161 (2) , 76-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2024.01.004
Karem Slim, Gilles Tilmans, Bob V. Occéan, Chadly Dziri, Bruno Pereira, Michel Canis. Méta-analyse des essais randomisés comparant la chirurgie robotique à la chirurgie laparoscopique pour cancers du moyen-bas rectum. Journal de Chirurgie Viscérale 2024, 161 (2) , 85-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchirv.2023.12.003
Nicola de’Angelis, Christel Conso, Giorgio Bianchi, Ana Gabriela Barría Rodríguez, Francesco Marchegiani, Maria Clotilde Carra, Charlotte Lafont, Florence Canouï-Poitrine, Karem Slim, Patrick Pessaux. Revue systématique du bilan carbone des interventions chirurgicales. Journal de Chirurgie Viscérale 2024, 161 (2) , 7-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchirv.2023.02.002
Nicholas Chin Hock Tee, Jo-Anne Yeo, Mahesh Choolani, Kian Keong Poh, Tiing Leong Ang. Healthcare in the era of climate change and the need for environmental sustainability. Singapore Medical Journal 2024, 65 (4) , 204-210. https://doi.org/10.4103/singaporemedj.SMJ-2024-035
Alexandra E. Fogarty, Annalee Wilson, Maya Godambe, Nidhi Shinde, Christine Gou, Gregory Decker, Joe Steensma. The carbon footprint of epidural steroid injections: A pilot study. PM&R 2024, 29 https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13111
Haleh Saadat, Vidya T. Raman. Environmentally Sustainable Anesthesia to Minimize Risks from Climate Change: a Societal Imperative or too Lofty a Goal?. Current Anesthesiology Reports 2024, 14 (1) , 57-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40140-023-00604-x
Jean-Claude Pauchard, El-Mahdi Hafiani, Stéphanie Pons, Laure Bonnet, Delphine Cabelguenne, Philippe Carenco, Pierre Cassier, Jérémie Garnier, Florence Lallemant, Valérie Sautou, Audrey De Jong, Anaïs Caillard. Réduction de l’impact environnemental de l’anesthésie générale. Anesthésie & Réanimation 2024, 10 (2) , 132-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anrea.2024.02.005
Alexander S. Rabin, Peggy S. Lai, Stephanie I. Maximous, Hari M. Shankar. Reducing the Climate Impact of Critical Care. CHEST Critical Care 2024, 2 (1) , 100037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chstcc.2023.100037
Femke van Zanten, Sacha Tensen, Lynn Snijder, Martijn Broeren, Anneke Kwee. Impact of delivery instruments on the environment: A life cycle assessment. Reproductive, Female and Child Health 2024, 3 (1) https://doi.org/10.1002/rfc2.72
Kang Liu, Mengmeng Wang, Qiaozhi Zhang, Shanta Dutta, Tianle Zheng, Marjorie Valix, Daniel C.W. Tsang. Negative-carbon recycling of copper from waste as secondary resources using deep eutectic solvents. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2024, 465 , 133258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.133258
Duncan A. Meiklejohn, Zafrul H. Khan, Karyn M. Nuñez, Lee Imhof, Sabah Osmani, Amaris C. Benavidez, Rafiqul Tarefder. Environmental Impact of Adult Tonsillectomy: Life Cycle Assessment and Cost Comparison of Techniques. The Laryngoscope 2024, 134 (2) , 622-628. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.30866
Maliha Tariq, Ankesh Siddhantakar, Jodi D. Sherman, Alexander Cimprich, Steven B. Young. Life cycle assessment of medical oxygen. Journal of Cleaner Production 2024, 786 , 141126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141126
Sunil Balgobin, Ethan M. Balk, Anne E. Porter, Meenal Misal, Tamara Grisales, Kate V. Meriwether, Peter C. Jeppson, Paula J. Doyle, Sarit O. Aschkenazi, Jeannine M. Miranne, Deslyn T. Hobson, David L. Howard, Saifuddin Mama, Ankita Gupta, Danielle D. Antosh, . Enabling Technologies for Gynecologic Vaginal Surgery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2024, 129 https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005522
Alexandra I. Melnyk, Noe Woods, Megan S. Bradley, Pamela Moalli. The Use of Disposable Supplies: Measuring Suburethral Sling Surgical Waste by Cost and Weight. Urogynecology 2024, 30 (2) , 132-137. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001393
Mads Barloese, Claus Leth Petersen. Sustainable health care: a real-world appraisal of a modern imaging department. Clinical Imaging 2024, 105 , 110025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2023.110025
Alayna Carrandi, Christina Nguyen, Wai Chung Tse, Colman Taylor, Forbes McGain, Kelly Thompson, Martin Hensher, Scott McAlister, Alisa M. Higgins. How environmental impact is considered in economic evaluations of critical care: a scoping review. Intensive Care Medicine 2024, 50 (1) , 36-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-023-07274-7
Aws Almukhtar, Carys Batcup, Miranda Bowman, Jasmine Winter-Beatty, Daniel Leff, Pelin Demirel, Talya Porat, Gaby Judah. Barriers and facilitators to sustainable operating theatres: a systematic review using the Theoretical Domains Framework. International Journal of Surgery 2024, 110 (1) , 554-568. https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000000829
Karam Mark Karam, Mohamad K. Moussa, Eugénie Valentin, Alain Meyer, Yoann Bohu, Antoine Gerometta, Olivier Grimaud, Nicolas Lefevre, Alexandre Hardy. Sustainability studies in orthopaedic surgery: The carbon footprint of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction depends on graft choice. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2024, 32 (1) , 124-134. https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12035
Claudia Quitmann, Mattis Keil, Alina Herrmann, Robert Schulz, Peter-Paul Pichler. Umweltauswirkungen des Gesundheitssektors. 2024, 335-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-68792-5_17
Hanneke Verschoor, Marten Toxopeus, Sam Altnji, Laura van Ginkel, Vincent Stirler, Gabriëlle Tuijthof. LCA comparing 3D printed splints to conventional splints for traumatic injuries. Procedia CIRP 2024, 122 , 1000-1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2024.01.135
Kim van Nieuwenhuizen, Anne van der Eijk, Frank Willem Jansen. Medische technologie als kans om de zorg te verduurzamen: utopie of dystopie?. 2024, 198-221. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-368-3021-8_8
Emre Gorgun, Sumudu Dehipawala, Matthew O’Hara, Elena Naoumtchik, Gaurav Gangoli, Crystal Ricketts, Giovanni A. Tommaselli. Environmental Sustainability Initiatives in the Operating Room: A Scoping Review. Annals of Surgery Open 2024, 5 (3) , e451. https://doi.org/10.1097/AS9.0000000000000451
Emily B. Parker, Eric M. Bluman, Christopher P. Chiodo, Elizabeth A. Martin, Jeremy T. Smith. Carbon Footprint of Minor Foot and Ankle Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics 2024, 9 (1) https://doi.org/10.1177/24730114241238231
Aws Almukhtar, Carys Batcup, Miranda Bowman, Jasmine Winter Beatty, Daniel Leff, Pelin Demirel, Gaby Judah, Talya Porat. Interventions to achieve environmentally sustainable operating theatres: an umbrella systematic review using the behaviour change wheel. International Journal of Surgery 2024, 110 (11) , 7245-7267. https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000001951
Nicole Kasia Stachura, Sukham K Brar, Jacob Davidson, Claire A Wilson, Celia Dann, Mike Apostol, John Vecchio, Shannon Bilodeau, Anna Gunz, Diana Catalina Casas-Lopez, Ruediger Noppens, Ken Leslie, Julie E Strychowsky. Exploring the Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions of Hospital Staff and Patients on Environmental Sustainability in the Operating Room: Quality Improvement Survey Study. JMIR Perioperative Medicine 2024, 7 , e59790. https://doi.org/10.2196/59790
Manpreet Kaur, Nemit Verma, Hukum Singh. Enhancing Urban Sustainability Through Heavy Metal Extraction: Mechanisms, Challenges, and Environmental Impact. 2024, 261-277. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67837-0_13
Forbes McGain, Kasun Wickramarachchi, Lu Aye, Brandon G. Chan, Nicole Sheridan, Phong Tran, Scott McAlister. The carbon footprint of total knee replacements. Australian Health Review 2024, 48 (6) , 664-672. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH24154
Jenny H. Chang, Ilyssa O. Gordon, Benjamin Miller. Sustaining Surgery for the Future. Annals of Surgery 2023, 278 (6) , e1159-e1160. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006042
Jordan Emont, Melissa Wang, Kelly Wright. Health system decarbonization on obstetric and newborn units. Seminars in Perinatology 2023, 47 (8) , 151844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semperi.2023.151844
Nona Schmidt, Marieke E. Sijm-Eeken, Sylvie AM. Langhout, Lotte Ruchtie, Frans PJM. Voorbraak, Nicolaas H. Sperna Weiland. A two-step approach to create and evaluate an optimization method for surgical instrument trays to reduce their environmental impact. Cleaner Environmental Systems 2023, 11 , 100154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2023.100154
Kelly N. Wright, Alexandra I. Melnyk, Jordan Emont, Jane Van Dis. Sustainability in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2023, 373 https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005435
Birgitte Lilholt Sørensen, Sara Larsen, Claus Andersen. A review of environmental and economic aspects of medical devices, illustrated with a comparative study of double-lumen tubes used for one-lung ventilation. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2023, 25 (11) , 13219-13252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02611-0
Katie E. Lichter, Kiley Charbonneau, Ali Sabbagh, Alon Witztum, Rob Chuter, Chirjiv Anand, Cassandra L. Thiel, Osama Mohamad. Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Radiation Therapy Using Life Cycle Assessments: A Critical Review. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 2023, 117 (3) , 554-567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.04.036
Hasan Nikkhah, Burcu Beykal, Matthew D. Stuber. Comparative life cycle assessment of single-use cardiopulmonary bypass devices. Journal of Cleaner Production 2023, 425 , 138815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138815
Anand Bhopal, Siddhanth Sharma, Ole F Norheim. Balancing the health benefits and climate mortality costs of haemodialysis. Future Healthcare Journal 2023, 10 (3) , 308-312. https://doi.org/10.7861/fhj.2022-0127
Jean-Claude Pauchard, El-Madhi Hafiani, Stéphanie Pons, Laure Bonnet, Delphine Cabelguenne, Philipe Carenco, Pierre Cassier, Jérémie Garnier, Florence Lallemant, Valérie Sautou, Audrey De Jong, Anaïs Caillard. Guidelines for reducing the environmental impact of general anaesthesia. Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine 2023, 42 (5) , 101291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accpm.2023.101291
Francesca Farlie, Giles Anthony Palmer, Jacques Cohen, Charles Calcagni, Anna Gorbunova, James Lawford Davies, Carol Loscher, Roisin O'Raghallaigh, Timothy Sharp, Daniela Smale, Pernilla Sörme, Cassandra L. Thiel, Alessandra Alteri, Alison Campbell, Kirsty Crompton, Sharon Mortimer, Valerio Pisaturo, Annelies Tolpe, Mina Alikani. Sustainability in the IVF laboratory: recommendations of an expert panel. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2023, 102 , 103600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.103600
Dalibel Bravo, Cassandra Thiel, Ricardo Bello, Akini Moses, Nader Paksima, Eitan Melamed. What a Waste! The Impact of Unused Surgical Supplies in Hand Surgery and How We Can Improve. HAND 2023, 18 (7) , 1215-1221. https://doi.org/10.1177/15589447221084011
Mael Lever, Nicolai Smetana, Nikolaos E. Bechrakis, Andreas Foerster. Erhebung und Reduktion der Abfallproduktion im Augenoperationsbereich. Die Ophthalmologie 2023, 120 (9) , 932-939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-023-01840-6
Alexandra I. Melnyk, Noe Woods, Pamela Moalli. Going green in gynecology: a call to action. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2023, 229 (3) , 269-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.04.025
Pedro López-Muñoz, Rubén Martín-Cabezuelo, Vicente Lorenzo-Zúñiga, Guillermo Vilariño-Feltrer, Isabel Tort-Ausina, Ana Vidaurre, Vicente Pons Beltran. Life cycle assessment of routinely used endoscopic instruments and simple intervention to reduce our environmental impact. Gut 2023, 72 (9) , 1692-1697. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2023-329544
Manish Kohli. Cancer Prescriptions and Impact on Climate Change: Real or Imagined?. JCO Oncology Practice 2023, 19 (9) , 697-699. https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.23.00424
Alexandra I. Melnyk, Clarissa Niino, Kelly N. Wright. Addressing Sustainability in the Operating Room. Urogynecology 2023, 29 (9) , 719-724. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001395
Jonas Dohmen, Meike Lessau, Michael Schmitz, Jörg C. Kalff. Recycling von chirurgischen Einweginstrumenten – lohnt sich das?. Zentralblatt für Chirurgie - Zeitschrift für Allgemeine, Viszeral-, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie 2023, 148 (04) , 329-336. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2122-7519
Nicole J. Buote, Ian Porter, Gregory F. Dakin. 3D printed cannulas for use in laparoscopic surgery in feline patients: A cadaveric study and case series. Veterinary Surgery 2023, 52 (6) , 870-877. https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.13849
, Charlotte M Pickett, Dachel D Seeratan, Ben Willem J Mol, Theodoor E. Nieboer, Neil Johnson, Tijmen Bonestroo, Johanna WM Aarts. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2023, 2023 (8) https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub6
Kai Siang Chan, Hong Yee Lo, Vishal G Shelat. Carbon footprints in minimally invasive surgery: Good patient outcomes, but costly for the environment. World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 2023, 15 (7) , 1277-1285. https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v15.i7.1277
William Leiva. Healthcare Environmental Footprint: Proposal to Deliver Sustainability through an Innovative Value Stream Using a Circular Economy Approach. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence 2023, 17 (1) , 149-158. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2023-0017
Helen Perry, Nicola Reeves, James Ansell, Julie Cornish, Jared Torkington, Daniel S. Morris, Fiona Brennan, James Horwood. Innovations towards achieving environmentally sustainable operating theatres: A systematic review. The Surgeon 2023, 21 (3) , 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2022.04.012
Miguel F. Cunha, Gianluca Pellino. Environmental effects of surgical procedures and strategies for sustainable surgery. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2023, 20 (6) , 399-410. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-022-00716-5
Chantelle Rizan, Robert Lillywhite, Malcom Reed, Mahmood F Bhutta. The carbon footprint of products used in five common surgical operations: identifying contributing products and processes. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2023, 116 (6) , 199-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/01410768231166135

Load more citations

Download PDF

Get e-Alerts

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 3, 1779–1786

Click to copy citationCitation copied!

https://doi.org/10.1021/es504719g

Published December 17, 2014

Request reuse permissions

Article Views

Altmetric

Citations

261

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

Abstract
High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
Figure 1
Figure 1. Boundaries for life cycle assessment of hysterectomy. HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, MSW = municipal solid waste, Path = pathogenic, RMW = regulated medical waste.
High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
Figure 2
Figure 2. Average material composition of nonhazardous solid waste (municipal solid waste and recycling) from a single hysterectomy by surgery type. SMS = spunbond-meltblown-spunbond.
High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
Figure 3
Figure 3. Total life cycle environmental impacts of an average hysterectomy by surgery type (normalized to highest hysterectomy type in impact category). Negative values reflect positive environmental impacts due to recycling; Error bars represent 90% confidence interval from Monte Carlo Analysis.
High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
Figure 4
Figure 4. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetics used in all hysterectomy cases based on surgery duration. Sev = sevoflurane, Des = desflurane, N₂O = nitrous oxide.
High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
References
This article references 50 other publications.
1. 1
  BEA. National Incomeand Product Accounts. www.bea.gov, 2011.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
2. 2
  Rudish, R.; Eckstein, A.; Vettori, E.; Purdy, L.; Qu, Y.; Elbel, G.; Dhawan, A.; Lee, J.; Jaber, H.; Yap, J.; Adao, V.; Hammett, S.; George, R.; Copeland, B.; Wada, Y.; Vega, G. M.; Morris, M. 2014 Global Health Care Outlook: Shared Challenges, Shared Opportunities; Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited: London, 2014.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
3. 3
  Pollard, A. S.; Taylor, T. J.; Fleming, L. E.; Stahl-Timmins, W.; Depledge, M. H.; Osborne, N. J. Mainstreaming carbon management in healthcare systems: A bottom-up modeling approach Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 47 (2) 678– 686
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
4. 4
  Hendron, R.; Leach, M.; Bonnema, E.; Shekhar, D.; Pless, S. Advanced Energy Retrofit Guide (AERG): Practical Ways to Improve Energy Performance; Healthcare Facilities (Book); National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, 2013.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
5. 5
  U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2007 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS); U.S. EIA: Washington, DC, 2012; Table H5, Major Fuels Usage for Large Hospitals, 2007.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
6. 6
  U.S. EPA Profile of the Healthcare Industry; Report No. EPA/310-R-05-002; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2005.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
7. 7
  Freedonia Group. Disposable Medical Supplies: United States; Report No. FF40019; Freedonia Group: Cleveland, OH, 2014.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
8. 8
  Costello, A.; Montgomery, H.; Watts, N. Climate change: The challenge for healthcare professionals. BMJ [Br. Med. J.] 2013, 347.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
9. 9
  Kagoma, Y.; Stall, N.; Rubinstein, E.; Naudie, D. People, planet and profits: The case for greening operating rooms Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2012, 184 (17) 1905– 1911
  9
  People, planet and profits: the case for greening operating rooms
  Kagoma Yoan; Stall Nathan; Rubinstein Edward; Naudie Douglas
  CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne (2012), 184 (17), 1905-11 ISSN:.
  There is no expanded citation for this reference.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC38novVSmsQ%253D%253D&md5=a51c118ad5e9109c23b226f410a71104
10. 10
  Townend, W. K.; Cheeseman, C. R. Guidelines for the evaluation and assessment of the sustainable use of resources and of wastes management at healthcare facilities Waste Manage. Res. 2005, 23 (5) 398– 408
  10
  Guidelines for the evaluation and assessment of the sustainable use of resources and of wastes management at healthcare facilities
  Townend William K; Cheeseman Christopher R
  Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA (2005), 23 (5), 398-408 ISSN:0734-242X.
  This paper presents guidelines that can be used by managers of healthcare facilities to evaluate and assess the quality of resources and waste management at their facilities and enabling the principles of sustainable development to be addressed. The guidelines include the following key aspects which need to be considered when completing an assessment. They are: (a) general management; (b) social issues; (c) health and safety; (d) energy and water use; (e) purchasing and supply; (f) waste management (responsibility, segregation, storage and packaging); (g) waste transport; (h) recycling and re-use; (i) waste treatment; and (j) final disposal. They identify actions required to achieve a higher level of performance which can readily be applied to any healthcare facility, irrespective of the local level of social, economic and environmental development. The guidelines are presented, and the characteristics of facilities associated with sustainable (level 4) and unsustainable (level 0) healthcare resource and wastes management are outlined. They have been used to assess a major London hospital, and this highlighted a number of deficiencies in current practice, including a lack of control over purchasing and supply, and very low rates of segregation of municipal solid waste from hazardous healthcare waste.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD2MrpsFWguw%253D%253D&md5=42970770c932aa47795927cd326106e9
11. 11
  Tudor, T. L.; Townend, W. K.; Cheeseman, C. R.; Edgar, J. E. An overview of arisings and large-scale treatment technologies for healthcare waste in the United Kingdom Waste Manage. Res. 2009, 27 (4) 374– 383
  11
  An overview of arisings and large-scale treatment technologies for healthcare waste in the United Kingdom
  Tudor Terry L; Townend William K; Cheeseman Christopher R; Edgar Jen E
  Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA (2009), 27 (4), 374-83 ISSN:0734-242X.
  This paper reviews the current generation and management of healthcare waste in the United Kingdom, with a focus on that produced from healthcare provision in the National Health Service. While the current capacities of large-scale off-site treatment systems are adequate, there are a number of logistical factors that must be considered in future. These include variations in arisings from each country and from various regions within each country, the age and location of treatment/disposal facilities, the quantities, types and sources of healthcare waste, and the impact of waste minimization and recycling strategies. Managing UK healthcare waste is a complex issue that requires the correct technologies and capacities to be available. With increasing quantities and costs there is urgent need for future planning, and healthcare waste issues need to be addressed from a UK-wide perspective. Holistic strategies need to incorporate both minimization and segregation, with treatment using a combination of incineration and alternatives treatment technologies. The need for more research and accurate data to provide an evidence-base for future decision-making is highlighted.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD1MvktFCntw%253D%253D&md5=140e33851c183851c48e339298b95fd6
12. 12
  Allen, M. R. Effective pollution prevention in healthcare environments J. Cleaner Prod. 2006, 14 (6–7) 610– 615
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
13. 13
  Zimmer, C. Minimum impact. Reducing the detrimental effects of hospital waste Health Facil. Manage. 2012, 25 (3) 43– 44
  47
  13
  Minimum impact. Reducing the detrimental effects of hospital waste
  Zimmer Catherine
  Health facilities management (2012), 25 (3), 43-4, 47 ISSN:0899-6210.
  There is no expanded citation for this reference.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC38rms1Sktw%253D%253D&md5=ed1885e1144e3e2357b16d7b3aeb689f
14. 14
  Kwakye, G.; Brat, G. A.; Makary, M. A. Green surgical practices for health care Arch. Surg. (Chicago, IL, U. S.) 2011, 146 (2) 131– 136
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
15. 15
  Brown, L. H.; Buettner, P. G.; Canyon, D. V.; Crawford, J. M.; Judd, J. Estimating the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Australian ambulance services J. Cleaner Prod. 2012, 37, 135– 141
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
16. 16
  Shrake, S. O.; Thiel, C. L.; Landis, A. E.; Bilec, M. M. Life cycle assessment as a tool for improving service industry sustainability Potentials, IEEE 2012, 31 (1) 10– 15
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
17. 17
  Campion, N.; Thiel, C. L.; DeBlois, J.; Woods, N. C.; Landis, A. E.; Bilec, M. M. Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 425 (0) 191– 198
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
18. 18
  Karlsson, M.; Pigretti-Ohman, D. Climate impact of material consumption in the health care sector - Case study Region Scania Environ. Conscious Des. Inverse Manuf. 2005, 4, 724– 725
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
19. 19
  Sherman, J.; Le, C.; Lamers, V.; Eckelman, M. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetic drugs Anesth. Analg. (Hagerstown, MD, U. S.) 2012, 114 (5) 1086– 1090
  19
  Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetic drugs
  Sherman, Jodi; Le, Cathy; Lamers, Vanessa; Eckelman, Matthew
  Anesthesia & Analgesia (Hagerstown, MD, United States) (2012), 114 (5), 1086-1090CODEN: AACRAT; ISSN:0003-2999. (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins)
  Anesthesiologists must consider the entire life cycle of drugs in order to include environmental impacts into clin. decisions. In the present study we used life cycle assessment to examine the climate change impacts of 5 anesthetic drugs: sevoflurane, desflurane, isoflurane, nitrous oxide, and propofol. A full cradle-to-grave approach was used, encompassing resource extn., drug manufg., transport to health care facilities, drug delivery to the patient, and disposal or emission to the environment. At each stage of the life cycle, energy, material inputs, and emissions were considered, as well as use-specific impacts of each drug. The 4 inhalation anesthetics are greenhouse gases (GHGs), and so life cycle GHG emissions include waste anesthetic gases vented to the atm. and emissions (largely carbon dioxide) that arise from other life cycle stages. Desflurane accounts for the largest life cycle GHG impact among the anesthetic drugs considered here: 15 times that of isoflurane and 20 times that of sevoflurane on a per MAC-hour basis when administered in an O2/air admixt. GHG emissions increase significantly for all drugs when administered in an N2O/O2 admixt. For all of the inhalation anesthetics, GHG impacts are dominated by uncontrolled emissions of waste anesthetic gases. GHG impacts of propofol are comparatively quite small, nearly 4 orders of magnitude lower than those of desflurane or nitrous oxide. Unlike the inhaled drugs, the GHG impacts of propofol primarily stem from the electricity required for the syringe pump and not from drug prodn. or direct release to the environment. Our results reiterate previous published data on the GHG effects of these inhaled drugs, while providing a life cycle context. There are several practical environmental impact mitigation strategies. Desflurane and nitrous oxide should be restricted to cases where they may reduce morbidity and mortality over alternative drugs. Clinicians should avoid unnecessarily high fresh gas flow rates for all inhaled drugs. There are waste anesthetic gas capturing systems, and even in advance of reprocessed gas applications, strong consideration should be given to their use. From our results it appears likely that techniques other than inhalation anesthetics, such as total IV anesthesia, neuraxial, or peripheral nerve blocks, would be least harmful to the environment.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC38XlvFaksr8%253D&md5=045b518a92d126f23069f468c25ca834
20. 20
  Sherman, J.; Ryan, S. Ecological resposnibility in anesthesia practice Int. Anesthesiol. Clin. 2010, 48 (3) 139– 151
  20
  Ecological responsibility in anesthesia practice
  Sherman Jodi D; Ryan Susan
  International anesthesiology clinics (2010), 48 (3), 139-51 ISSN:.
  There is no expanded citation for this reference.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC3cnlvVOltQ%253D%253D&md5=5bee33b73f61a001620628369b39453f
21. 21
  U. S. Air Force Institute for Environment Safety and Occupational Health Risk Analysis. Medical waste incinerator waste management plan. http://airforcemedicine.afms.mil/idc/groups/public/documents/afms/ctb_033957.pdf, 2001.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
22. 22
  Goldberg, M. E.; Vekeman, D.; Torjman, M. C.; Seltzer, J. L.; Kynes, T. Medical waste in the environment: Do anesthesia personnel have a role to play? J. Clin. Anesth. 1996, 8 (6) 475– 479
  22
  Medical waste in the environment: do anesthesia personnel have a role to play?
  Goldberg M E; Vekeman D; Torjman M C; Seltzer J L; Kynes T
  Journal of clinical anesthesia (1996), 8 (6), 475-9 ISSN:0952-8180.
  STUDY OBJECTIVE: To conduct a feasibility study of the mechanics of recycling single-use anesthesia breathing systems and practices of anesthesiologists and nurse-anesthetists in a tri-state region. STUDY DESIGN: Two-part, open, prospective analysis using pre-printed questionnaire and cost/time analysis of labor and materials. SETTING: Questionnaire sent to 413 anesthesiology departments in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, and hospital/recycling facility for evaluation of time and cost. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Time to disassemble and sort the breathing circuits, analysis of costs and obtainable income from byproducts of recycling, and standard survey questionnaire concerning demographic characteristics of respondents and individual department/hospital practitioners. Data analysis included analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Pilot analysis: Sorting of circuits to economic component required ten minutes at an average cost of $1.60 Value of scraps obtainable was $3.44, leaving a gross margin of $1.84 for a box of 18 circuits. Benefit analysis: Extended reduction in the regulated medical waste in our operating room of 16,875 lb, saving $4,387.50 per year. With generation of revenue from scrap, the net gain is $5,994.64 per yr. Questionnaire: Majority (83%) of departments polled would participate in recycling implemented by suppliers. Most respondents would not consider (58%) recycling unless mandated by law. CONCLUSION: The program described is cost-effective and environmentally beneficial.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK2s%252Fis1Gjuw%253D%253D&md5=dbf3b56256e375b09a3f0953b72354f4
23. 23
  Lee, B. K.; Ellenbecker, M. J.; Moure-Eraso, R. Analyses of the recycling potential of medical plastic wastes Waste Manage. 2002, 22 (5) 461– 470
  23
  Analyses of the recycling potential of medical plastic wastes
  Lee, Byeong-Kyu; Ellenbecker, Michael J.; Moure-Eraso, Rafael
  Waste Management (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (2002), 22 (5), 461-470CODEN: WAMAE2; ISSN:0956-053X. (Elsevier Science B.V.)
  The recycling potential of plastic wastes from health care facilities was investigated. We detd. that the recycling potential of plastics generated in hospital cafeterias is much greater than from other departments.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD38XjvVelsb4%253D&md5=062e9d23b51ac67f1a3047842cd889af
24. 24
  Whiteman, M.; Hillis, S.; Jamieson, D.; Morrow, B.; Podgornik, M.; Brett, K.; Marchbanks, P. Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000–2004 Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2008, 63 (5) 304
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
25. 25
  US news and world report top-ranked hospitals for gynecology. http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings/gynecology (5/28/ 2013) .
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
26. 26
  ISO. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and framework; ISO 14040; International Organization for Standardization: Switzerland, 1997.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
27. 27
  ISO Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and Guidelines; ISO 14044:2006; International Organization for Standardization: Switzerland, 2006.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
28. 28
  Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. Economicinput-output life cycle assessment (EIO-LCA) US 2002 (428) model. http://www.eiolca.net (April 18, 2013) .
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
29. 29
  NREL. Life-Cycle Inventory Database (USLCI). http://www.nrel.gov/lci/database/.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
30. 30
  Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Heck, T.; Hellweg, S.; Hischier, R.; Nemecek, T.; Rebitzer, G. The ecoinvent database: Overview and methodological framework Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2005, 10 (1) 3– 9
  30
  The ecoinvent database: overview and methodological framework
  Frischknecht, Rolf; Jungbluth, Niels; Althaus, Hans-Joerg; Doka, Gabor; Dones, Roberto; Heck, Thomas; Hellweg, Stefanie; Hischier, Roland; Nemecek, Thomas; Rebitzer, Gerald; Spielmann, Michael
  International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2005), 10 (1), 3-9CODEN: IJLCFF; ISSN:0948-3349. (Ecomed Publishers AG & Co. KG)
  Introduction: This paper provides an overview on the content of the ecoinvent database and of selected metholodogical issues applied on the life cycle inventories implemented in the ecoinvent database. Goal, Scope and Background: In the year 2000, several Swiss Federal Offices and research institutes of the ETH domain agreed to a joint effort to harmonize and update life cycle inventory (LCI) data for its use in life cycle assessment (LCA). With the ecoinvent database and its actual data v1.1, a consistent set of more than 2500 product and service LCIs is now available. Method: Nearly all process datasets are transparently documented on the level of unit process inputs and outputs. Methodol. approaches have been applied consistently throughout the entire database content and thus guarantee for a coherent set of LCI data. This is particularly true for market and trade modeling (see, for example, electricity modeling), for the treatment of multioutput and of recycling processes, but also for the recording and reporting of elementary flows. The differentiation of diam. size for particulate matter emissions, for instance, allows for a more comprehensive impact assessment of human health effects. Data quality is quant. reported in terms of std. deviations of the amts. of input and output flows. In many cases qual. indicators are reported addnl. on the level of each individual input and output. The information sources used vary from extensive statistical works to individual (point) measurements or assumptions derived from process descriptions. However, all datasets passed the same quality control procedure and all information relevant and necessary to judge the suitability of a dataset in a certain context are provided in the database. Data documentation and exchange is based on the EcoSpold data format, which complies with the tech. specification ISO/TS 14048. Free access to process information via the Internet helps the user to judge the appropriateness of a dataset. Concluding Remarks: The existence of the ecoinvent database proves that it is possible and feasible to build up a large interlinked system of LCI unit processes. The project work proved to be demanding in terms of co-ordination efforts required and consent identification. One main characteristic of the database is its transparency in reporting to enable individual assessment of data appropriateness and to support the plurality in methodol. approaches. Outlook: Further work on the ecoinvent database may comprise work on the database content (new or more detailed datasets covering existing or new economic sectors), LCI (modeling) methodol., the structure and features of the database system (e.g. extension of Monte Carlo simulation to the impact assessment phase) or improvements in ecoinvent data supply and data query. Furthermore, the deepening and building up of international co-operations in LCI data collection and supply is in the focus of future activities.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2MXmsFektw%253D%253D&md5=3376351179c73b8708d791075d8ac24f
31. 31
  U.S. EPA. eGRID2010, Version 1.1; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2007.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
32. 32
  Ponder, C. S. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis of Medical Textiles and Their Role in Prevention of Nosocomial Infections; North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2009.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
33. 33
  McGain, F.; McAlister, S.; McGavin, A.; Story, D. A life cycle assessment of reusable and single-use central venous catheter insertion kits Anesth. Analg. (Hagerstown, MD, U. S.) 2012, 114 (5) 1073– 1080
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
34. 34
  Dettenkofer, M.; Grießhammer, R.; Scherrer, M.; Daschner, F. Life-cycle assessment of single-use versus reusable surgical drapes (cellulose/polyethylene - Mixed cotton system) Der Chirurg 1999, 70 (4) 485– 492
  34
  Life-cycle assessment of single-use versus reusable surgical drapes (cellulose/polyethylene-mixed cotton system)
  Dettenkofer M; Griesshammer R; Scherrer M; Daschner F
  Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen (1999), 70 (4), 485-91; discussion 491-2 ISSN:0009-4722.
  Surgical drapes made of cotton are under increasing competition with various disposable products and reusable draping systems (e.g., made of synthetic fabrics like polyester). When making a choice to use one of these medical devices in practical surgery, major aspects like handling, hygienic safety and costs, but also environmental effects have to be taken into account. In this study a mixed system for patient drapes (reusable cotton drapes combined with a reduced set of impermeable single-use drapes made of cellulose/polyethylene) was compared to a system that is only based on single-use drapes with regard to ecology [life-cycle assessment (LCA)]. The medical literature was reviewed to assess important medical aspects of the use of patient drapes, resulting in the statement that there are no conclusive arguments to support a clear hygienic superiority of one of these alternatives. Based on the conditions assumed and stated, the results of the LCA indicate that the mixed draping system is associated with two times more total energy consumption. In addition, more water is needed and more CO2 emissions are produced. However, draping with the single-use product results in more clinical waste. Regarding water pollution no system proved superior. It is difficult to compare and weigh various environmental aspects like the polluting cultivation of cotton in distant countries (reusable drapes) and the higher figure of transportation necessary to deliver the single-use product within Germany. It is an important disadvantage of the mixed system that it combines the ecological burden of both cotton drapes and the single-use alternative.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK1M3otlaltw%253D%253D&md5=def0f9b580ce9433ea16944b86e7769f
35. 35
  Bajpai, D.; Tyagi, V. Laundry detergents: An overview J. Oleo Sci. 2007, 56 (7) 327– 340
  35
  Laundry detergents: an overview
  Bajpai, Divya; Tyagi, V. K.
  Journal of Oleo Science (2007), 56 (7), 327-340CODEN: JOSOAP; ISSN:1345-8957. (Japan Oil ChemistsÏ Society)
  A review. Nowadays laundry detergents are becoming increasingly popular as they can be metered automatically into the washing machine, impart softness, antistaticness, resiliency to fabrics, mild to eyes and skins and shows good dispersibility in water. Because it is consumed when it is used, the sale of laundry detergent is a rather large business. There are many different kinds or brands of laundry detergent sold, many of them claiming some special qualities as selling points. A Laundry detergent compn. is a formulated mixt. of raw materials that can be classified into different types based on their properties and function in the final product. The different classes of raw materials are surfactants, builders, bleaching agents, enzymes, and minors which remove dirt, stain, and soil from surfaces or textiles gave them pleasant feel and odor. The physico-chem. properties of surfactants make them suitable for laundry purposes. Laundry detergent has traditionally been a powd. or granular solid, but the use of liq. laundry detergents has gradually increased over the years, and these days use of liq. detergent equals or even exceeds use of solid detergent. This review paper describes the history, compn., types, mechanism, consumption, environmental effects and consumption of laundry detergents.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2sXntlKnu7g%253D&md5=2a528a729a5dd652bc6b3e4f7a62999d
36. 36
  Barrie, D. How hospital linen and laundry services are provided J. Hosp. Infect. 1994, 27 (3) 219– 235
  36
  How hospital linen and laundry services are provided
  Barrie D
  The Journal of hospital infection (1994), 27 (3), 219-35 ISSN:0195-6701.
  Hospitals provide clean linen for patients and staff. This article describes the laundering process, laundry equipment, how used hospital linen differs from that of other large organizations and the Department of Health guidance on handling and laundering hospital linen. It reviews how hospital linen contracts are awarded and the responsibilities of the team which evaluates them. Methods of microbiological testing of laundered linen and the interpretation of the results are considered. The properties of different fabrics available for use in operating theatres are summarized. Measures to prevent infection and injury to staff handling used linen are given.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK2M%252Flt1GnsA%253D%253D&md5=a953ff0f8b74d5c698f29c8ba029c268
37. 37
  Blackburn, R.; Payne, J. Life cycle analysis of cotton towels: Impact of domestic laundering and recommendations for extending periods between washing Green Chem. 2004, 6 (7) G59– G61
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
38. 38
  Sulbaek Andersen, M. P.; Sander, S. P.; Nielsen, O. J.; Wagner, D. S.; Sanford, T. J.; Wallington, T. J. Inhalation anaesthetics and climate change Br. J. Anaesth. 2010, 105 (6) 760– 766
  38
  Inhalation anaesthetics and climate change
  Sulbaek Andersen M P; Sander S P; Nielsen O J; Wagner D S; Sanford T J Jr; Wallington T J
  British journal of anaesthesia (2010), 105 (6), 760-6 ISSN:.
  BACKGROUND: Although the increasing abundance of CO(2) in our atmosphere is the main driver of the observed climate change, it is the cumulative effect of all forcing agents that dictate the direction and magnitude of the change, and many smaller contributors are also at play. Isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane are widely used inhalation anaesthetics. Emissions of these compounds contribute to radiative forcing of climate change. To quantitatively assess the impact of the anaesthetics on the forcing of climate, detailed information on their properties of heat (infrared, IR) absorption and atmospheric lifetimes are required. METHODS: We have measured the IR spectra of these anaesthetics and conducted calculations of their contribution to radiative forcing of climate change recognizing the important fact that radiative forcing is strongly dependent on the wavelength of the absorption features. RESULTS: Radiative efficiencies of 0.453, 0.469, and 0.351 W m(-2) ppb(-1) and global warming potentials (GWPs) of 510, 1620, and 210 (100 yr time horizon) were established for isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the derived 100 yr GWPs, the average climate impact per anaesthetic procedure at the University of Michigan is the same as the emission of ∼22 kg CO(2). We estimate that the global emissions of inhalation anaesthetics have a climate impact which is comparable with that from the CO(2) emissions from one coal-fired power plant or 1 million passenger cars.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC3cbnsFCjsQ%253D%253D&md5=0a4b121b3ff63ab3dd55cf7c7e8e40f6
39. 39
  Lenzen, M. Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments: Implications for decision-making Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11 (3) 189– 199
  39
  Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments. Implications for decision-making
  Lenzen, Manfred
  International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2006), 11 (3), 189-199CODEN: IJLCFF; ISSN:0948-3349. (Ecomed Publishers AG & Co. KG)
  Many disciplines, amongst them LCIA, environmental impact and external cost assessments, are often faced with evaluating trade-offs between two or more alternative options in terms of a range of incommensurable indicators. Using process modeling and valuation, these indicators are quantified at mid- or endpoint levels. Recent discussion amongst LCA experts showed that because of the mutually exclusive aspects of uncertainty and relevance, the midpoint/endpoint debate is controversial and difficult to reconcile. This article is aimed at a more quant. anal. of mid- and endpoint impacts, and the implications of uncertainty for decision-making. The consequences for decision-making of uncertainties of endpoints are analyzed quant. for the example of ExternE results, by employing statistical hypothesis testing. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is then used to demonstrate the use of multi-criteria techniques at midpoint levels. Statistical hypothesis testing at the end-point level shows that for the ExternE example, probabilities of mistakenly favoring one alternative over another when they are in reality indistinguishable can be as high as 80%. Therefore, the best est. of external cost is inadequate for most policy making purposes. Indicators at midpoint levels are more certain, but since they are only 'proxy attributes', they carry a hidden uncertainty in their relevance. If endpoint information is too uncertain to allow a decision to be made with reasonable confidence, then the assessment can be carried out in midpoint terms. However, midpoint indicators are generally further removed from people's experience, and less relevant to the question that people actually want to solve. Nevertheless, if this ultimate question is unanswerable (within the certainty required by the decision-maker), a decision can be made on the basis of stakeholders' subjective judgments about the more certain midpoint levels. The crucial point is that these judgments are able to intuitively incorporate many aspects that impact modeling and valuation has trouble quantifying, such as perceived risk, distribution of burdens and benefits, equity, ethical, moral, religious and political beliefs and principles, immediacy and reversibility of potential impacts, voluntariness, controllability and familiarity of exposure, or perceived incompleteness of human knowledge.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD28Xls1Cktbg%253D&md5=8926e64b5da053507dc584dd7b4503a6
40. 40
  Bilec, M.; Ries, R.; Matthews, H. S.; Sharrard, A. L. Example of a hybrid life-cycle assessment of construction processes J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2006, 12 (4) 207– 215
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
41. 41
  BLS. Producer Price Index Industry Data; U.S. Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics: Washington, DC, 2013.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
42. 42
  Bare, J. C.; Norris, G. A.; Pennington, D. W.; McKone, T. TRACI: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts J. Ind. Ecol. 2003, 6 (3–4) 49– 78
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
43. 43
  Frischknecht R, J. N., Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods; Swiss Centre for LCI.: Duebendorf, CH, 2003.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
44. 44
  Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.; Doka, G.; Heck, T.; Hellweg, S.; Hischier, R.; Nemecek, T.; Rebitzer, G.; Spielmann, M.Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods, v2.0; Ecoinvent Report No. 3; Ecoinvent: Zurich, 2007.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
45. 45
  Tieszen, M. E.; Gruenberg, J. C. A quantitative, qualitative, and critical assessment of surgical waste: Surgeons venture through the trash can J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1992, 267 (20) 2765– 2768
  45
  A quantitative, qualitative, and critical assessment of surgical waste. Surgeons venture through the trash can
  Tieszen M E; Gruenberg J C
  JAMA (1992), 267 (20), 2765-8 ISSN:0098-7484.
  OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the surgical waste produced from several common surgical procedures, define categories of waste that might be readily separated for alternative disposal practices or substitution, and determine the change in surgical waste output that elimination or alternative handling methods may effect. DESIGN: A case series evaluating the surgical waste from five types of surgical procedures including operations of the back, heart, abdomen, hip and knee, and herniorrhaphies, prospectively identified and allocated at the availability of the investigator. SETTING: A single tertiary community teaching hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: Weight, volume, and percentage of disposable linen, paper, and plastic plus miscellaneous material from surgical waste with a later subset separating plastics from miscellaneous items to completely identify all categories. RESULTS: Surgical waste weighing 610.5 lb (274.7 kg) and occupying 171.6 cu ft (5.1 m3) from 27 cases was examined. Disposable linens accounted for 39% of the weight; paper, 7%; plastic, 26%; and miscellaneous waste, 27%. By volume, disposable linen and paper accounted for 69%; plastic, 23%; and miscellaneous waste, 7%. Disposable linen, paper, and recyclable plastic accounted for 73% +/- 7% (mean +/- SD) by weight and 93% +/- 4% by volume of total surgical waste. CONCLUSION: Nationally, annual surgical waste from these five procedures weighs 5.1 x 10(7) lb (2.3 x 10(7) kg) and occupies 1.4 x 10(7) cu ft (4.0 x 10(5) m3). By using reusable linen products and engaging in recycling methods currently available and feasible, we estimate that weight reductions of 73% and volume reductions of 93% in surgical waste are possible.
  >> More from SciFinder ^®
  https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK383ltF2gug%253D%253D&md5=4f527282ff05b3c0ae00cdfe079c45ee
46. 46
  Wright, J. D.; Ananth, C. V.; Lewin, S. L.; Burke, W. M.; Lu, Y.-S.; Neugut, A. I.; Herzog, T. J.; Hershman, D. L. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease JAMA 2013, 309 (7) 689– 698
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
47. 47
  U.S. CDC. Number of all-listed procedures for dischargesfrom short-stay hospitals, by procedure category and age: United States,2010. In CDC/NCHS National Hospital Discharge Survey; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Washington, DC, 2010.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
48. 48
  AMDR. Third-Party Medical Device Reprocessing; Association of Medical Devices Reprocessors: Washington, DC, 2012.
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
49. 49
  Eckelman, M.; Mosher, M.; Gonzalez, A.; Sherman, J. Comparative life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable laryngeal mask airways Anesth. Analg. (Hagerstown, MD, U. S.) 2012, 114 (5) 1067– 1072
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
50. 50
  Kaiser, B.; Eagan, P. D.; Shaner, H. Solutions to health care waste: Life-cycle thinking and “green” purchasing Environ. Health Perspect. 2001, 109 (3) 205– 207
  There is no corresponding record for this reference.
Supporting Information
Supporting Information
Life cycle inventory: database selection and allocation details, economic input-output LCA setup and LCIA, Monte Carlo analysis. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
- es504719g_si_001.pdf (145.94 kb)
Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Environmental Impacts of Surgical Procedures: Life Cycle Assessment of Hysterectomy in the United StatesClick to copy article linkArticle link copied!

Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Introduction

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

Figure 1

Waste Audit

Life Cycle Inventory

Hybrid LCA Approach

Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Monte Carlo Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty

Results

Material Footprint of Hysterectomy: Waste Audit Findings

Figure 2

Life Cycle Impacts of Hysterectomy

Figure 3

Disposable Materials

Anesthetics

Figure 4

Reusable Instruments

Energy

DISCUSSION: IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS

Developing Best Practices and Training: Selection and Delivery of Anesthetics

Impacts in the Supply Chain: Packaging and Purchasing

Future of Technologies in the Surgical Landscape

Supporting Information

Terms & Conditions

Author Information

Acknowledgment

ABBREVIATIONS

References

Cited By

Environmental Science & Technology

Article Views

Altmetric

Citations

Recommended Articles

Abstract

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

References

Supporting Information

Supporting Information

Terms & Conditions

Environmental Impacts of Surgical Procedures: Life Cycle Assessment of Hysterectomy in the United States
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!