Environmental Sustainability: Waste Audit Comparison Operating Roomand In‐Office Laryngeal Surgery
Introduction With vast improvements in imaging and endoscopic technology, there has been a massive shift towards in office procedures for various laryngeal disorders with significant health system and patient benefits. Another benefit which has yet to be investigated is the potential environmental e...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Laryngoscope 2024-02, Vol.134 (2), p.803-806 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 806 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 803 |
| container_title | The Laryngoscope |
| container_volume | 134 |
| creator | Anderson, Jennifer Hu, Huixin |
| description | Introduction
With vast improvements in imaging and endoscopic technology, there has been a massive shift towards in office procedures for various laryngeal disorders with significant health system and patient benefits. Another benefit which has yet to be investigated is the potential environmental effects and waste reduction of in‐office laryngeal procedures over traditional operating room surgery.
Objectives
The purpose of this study is to perform a waste audit and compare the results between operating room and in‐office laser laryngeal surgery.
Methods
Ten cases of in‐office and operating room laser laryngeal surgery, performed for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, were subjected to a waste audit with four waste streams identified. Recyclable, general waste, anesthesia source and sharps. All waste was included from the time of case preparation to termination.
Results
The cases were extremely homogeneous in the waste produced. The mean waste total produced for the operating room laser surgery was 2972 g of which 18% was recoverable/recyclable. Contamination rate was very low. Recycling was performed very well by nursing/prep staff; however, anesthesia was not recovering 13% of potential materials.
The in‐office waste produced was approximately one tenth of the operating room waste with almost all delegated into general waste. Potentially divertible/recyclable materials accounted for 38% of the waste in‐office procedures.
Conclusions
In‐office laryngeal procedures produce 13% of waste compared to surgery performed for similar pathology. These procedures are cost effective, safe and have been demonstrated to enhance environmental sustainability.
Level of Evidence
NA Laryngoscope, 134:803–806, 2024
Comparison waste audit was conducted between in office laryngeal laser surgery and traditional operating room laser microlaryngoscopy for RRP. The waste audit demonstrated that in‐office procedures have 13% of the total waste generated compared to in the operating room cases. Opportunities for further landfill diversion were also identified in our institutional practices. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/lary.31005 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2860616807</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2860616807</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3935-87680b1028d22e7e42169bbe8a450a799979ae943c43f72a3c7451d2b57a7e9e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1q3DAQx0VJaDZpL32AYsglBLzRp2X1tiz5goWFtKXtScj2eFGwpa1kJ-wtj5BnzJNEm01z6CGnGZgfv5n5I_SF4CnBmJ51JmymLLXiA5oQwUjOlRJ7aJKGLC8F_X2ADmO8xZhIJvBHdMBkIUrJ5AQ15-7OBu96cIPpsu9jHIx1prKdHTbfsl8mDpDNxsYO2dz3axNs9C5briGYwbpVduN9b1yTXbunh8dl29oaskW6x63gRRdWEDaf0H5rugifX-sR-nlx_mN-lS-Wl9fz2SKvmWIiL2VR4opgWjaUggROSaGqCkrDBTZSKSWVAcVZzVkrqWG15II0tBLSSFDAjtDJzrsO_u8IcdC9jTV0nXHgx6hpWeCCpCUyocf_obd-DC5dp6kiggvOqUrU6Y6qg48xQKvXwfbpPU2w3mavt9nrl-wT_PVVOVY9NG_ov7ATQHbAve1g845KL2Y3f3bSZzgbj4M</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2915454429</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Environmental Sustainability: Waste Audit Comparison Operating Roomand In‐Office Laryngeal Surgery</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Journals</source><creator>Anderson, Jennifer ; Hu, Huixin</creator><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Jennifer ; Hu, Huixin</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction
With vast improvements in imaging and endoscopic technology, there has been a massive shift towards in office procedures for various laryngeal disorders with significant health system and patient benefits. Another benefit which has yet to be investigated is the potential environmental effects and waste reduction of in‐office laryngeal procedures over traditional operating room surgery.
Objectives
The purpose of this study is to perform a waste audit and compare the results between operating room and in‐office laser laryngeal surgery.
Methods
Ten cases of in‐office and operating room laser laryngeal surgery, performed for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, were subjected to a waste audit with four waste streams identified. Recyclable, general waste, anesthesia source and sharps. All waste was included from the time of case preparation to termination.
Results
The cases were extremely homogeneous in the waste produced. The mean waste total produced for the operating room laser surgery was 2972 g of which 18% was recoverable/recyclable. Contamination rate was very low. Recycling was performed very well by nursing/prep staff; however, anesthesia was not recovering 13% of potential materials.
The in‐office waste produced was approximately one tenth of the operating room waste with almost all delegated into general waste. Potentially divertible/recyclable materials accounted for 38% of the waste in‐office procedures.
Conclusions
In‐office laryngeal procedures produce 13% of waste compared to surgery performed for similar pathology. These procedures are cost effective, safe and have been demonstrated to enhance environmental sustainability.
Level of Evidence
NA Laryngoscope, 134:803–806, 2024
Comparison waste audit was conducted between in office laryngeal laser surgery and traditional operating room laser microlaryngoscopy for RRP. The waste audit demonstrated that in‐office procedures have 13% of the total waste generated compared to in the operating room cases. Opportunities for further landfill diversion were also identified in our institutional practices.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-852X</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1531-4995</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-4995</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/lary.31005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37658737</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Ambulatory Surgical Procedures ; cost‐effectiveness ; Humans ; Laryngeal Diseases - surgery ; Laryngoscopes ; Larynx - surgery ; Laser Therapy ; Lasers ; micro laryngeal surgery ; Operating Rooms ; recurrent respiratory papillomatosis ; Surgery ; Sustainable development ; waste audit</subject><ispartof>The Laryngoscope, 2024-02, Vol.134 (2), p.803-806</ispartof><rights>2023 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.</rights><rights>2023 The Authors. The Laryngoscope published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.</rights><rights>2023. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3935-87680b1028d22e7e42169bbe8a450a799979ae943c43f72a3c7451d2b57a7e9e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3935-87680b1028d22e7e42169bbe8a450a799979ae943c43f72a3c7451d2b57a7e9e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7080-9567</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Flary.31005$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Flary.31005$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37658737$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Huixin</creatorcontrib><title>Environmental Sustainability: Waste Audit Comparison Operating Roomand In‐Office Laryngeal Surgery</title><title>The Laryngoscope</title><addtitle>Laryngoscope</addtitle><description>Introduction
With vast improvements in imaging and endoscopic technology, there has been a massive shift towards in office procedures for various laryngeal disorders with significant health system and patient benefits. Another benefit which has yet to be investigated is the potential environmental effects and waste reduction of in‐office laryngeal procedures over traditional operating room surgery.
Objectives
The purpose of this study is to perform a waste audit and compare the results between operating room and in‐office laser laryngeal surgery.
Methods
Ten cases of in‐office and operating room laser laryngeal surgery, performed for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, were subjected to a waste audit with four waste streams identified. Recyclable, general waste, anesthesia source and sharps. All waste was included from the time of case preparation to termination.
Results
The cases were extremely homogeneous in the waste produced. The mean waste total produced for the operating room laser surgery was 2972 g of which 18% was recoverable/recyclable. Contamination rate was very low. Recycling was performed very well by nursing/prep staff; however, anesthesia was not recovering 13% of potential materials.
The in‐office waste produced was approximately one tenth of the operating room waste with almost all delegated into general waste. Potentially divertible/recyclable materials accounted for 38% of the waste in‐office procedures.
Conclusions
In‐office laryngeal procedures produce 13% of waste compared to surgery performed for similar pathology. These procedures are cost effective, safe and have been demonstrated to enhance environmental sustainability.
Level of Evidence
NA Laryngoscope, 134:803–806, 2024
Comparison waste audit was conducted between in office laryngeal laser surgery and traditional operating room laser microlaryngoscopy for RRP. The waste audit demonstrated that in‐office procedures have 13% of the total waste generated compared to in the operating room cases. Opportunities for further landfill diversion were also identified in our institutional practices.</description><subject>Ambulatory Surgical Procedures</subject><subject>cost‐effectiveness</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laryngeal Diseases - surgery</subject><subject>Laryngoscopes</subject><subject>Larynx - surgery</subject><subject>Laser Therapy</subject><subject>Lasers</subject><subject>micro laryngeal surgery</subject><subject>Operating Rooms</subject><subject>recurrent respiratory papillomatosis</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Sustainable development</subject><subject>waste audit</subject><issn>0023-852X</issn><issn>1531-4995</issn><issn>1531-4995</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1q3DAQx0VJaDZpL32AYsglBLzRp2X1tiz5goWFtKXtScj2eFGwpa1kJ-wtj5BnzJNEm01z6CGnGZgfv5n5I_SF4CnBmJ51JmymLLXiA5oQwUjOlRJ7aJKGLC8F_X2ADmO8xZhIJvBHdMBkIUrJ5AQ15-7OBu96cIPpsu9jHIx1prKdHTbfsl8mDpDNxsYO2dz3axNs9C5briGYwbpVduN9b1yTXbunh8dl29oaskW6x63gRRdWEDaf0H5rugifX-sR-nlx_mN-lS-Wl9fz2SKvmWIiL2VR4opgWjaUggROSaGqCkrDBTZSKSWVAcVZzVkrqWG15II0tBLSSFDAjtDJzrsO_u8IcdC9jTV0nXHgx6hpWeCCpCUyocf_obd-DC5dp6kiggvOqUrU6Y6qg48xQKvXwfbpPU2w3mavt9nrl-wT_PVVOVY9NG_ov7ATQHbAve1g845KL2Y3f3bSZzgbj4M</recordid><startdate>202402</startdate><enddate>202402</enddate><creator>Anderson, Jennifer</creator><creator>Hu, Huixin</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7080-9567</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202402</creationdate><title>Environmental Sustainability: Waste Audit Comparison Operating Roomand In‐Office Laryngeal Surgery</title><author>Anderson, Jennifer ; Hu, Huixin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3935-87680b1028d22e7e42169bbe8a450a799979ae943c43f72a3c7451d2b57a7e9e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Ambulatory Surgical Procedures</topic><topic>cost‐effectiveness</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laryngeal Diseases - surgery</topic><topic>Laryngoscopes</topic><topic>Larynx - surgery</topic><topic>Laser Therapy</topic><topic>Lasers</topic><topic>micro laryngeal surgery</topic><topic>Operating Rooms</topic><topic>recurrent respiratory papillomatosis</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Sustainable development</topic><topic>waste audit</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Huixin</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Laryngoscope</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Anderson, Jennifer</au><au>Hu, Huixin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Environmental Sustainability: Waste Audit Comparison Operating Roomand In‐Office Laryngeal Surgery</atitle><jtitle>The Laryngoscope</jtitle><addtitle>Laryngoscope</addtitle><date>2024-02</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>134</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>803</spage><epage>806</epage><pages>803-806</pages><issn>0023-852X</issn><issn>1531-4995</issn><eissn>1531-4995</eissn><abstract>Introduction
With vast improvements in imaging and endoscopic technology, there has been a massive shift towards in office procedures for various laryngeal disorders with significant health system and patient benefits. Another benefit which has yet to be investigated is the potential environmental effects and waste reduction of in‐office laryngeal procedures over traditional operating room surgery.
Objectives
The purpose of this study is to perform a waste audit and compare the results between operating room and in‐office laser laryngeal surgery.
Methods
Ten cases of in‐office and operating room laser laryngeal surgery, performed for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, were subjected to a waste audit with four waste streams identified. Recyclable, general waste, anesthesia source and sharps. All waste was included from the time of case preparation to termination.
Results
The cases were extremely homogeneous in the waste produced. The mean waste total produced for the operating room laser surgery was 2972 g of which 18% was recoverable/recyclable. Contamination rate was very low. Recycling was performed very well by nursing/prep staff; however, anesthesia was not recovering 13% of potential materials.
The in‐office waste produced was approximately one tenth of the operating room waste with almost all delegated into general waste. Potentially divertible/recyclable materials accounted for 38% of the waste in‐office procedures.
Conclusions
In‐office laryngeal procedures produce 13% of waste compared to surgery performed for similar pathology. These procedures are cost effective, safe and have been demonstrated to enhance environmental sustainability.
Level of Evidence
NA Laryngoscope, 134:803–806, 2024
Comparison waste audit was conducted between in office laryngeal laser surgery and traditional operating room laser microlaryngoscopy for RRP. The waste audit demonstrated that in‐office procedures have 13% of the total waste generated compared to in the operating room cases. Opportunities for further landfill diversion were also identified in our institutional practices.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>37658737</pmid><doi>10.1002/lary.31005</doi><tpages>4</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7080-9567</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0023-852X |
| ispartof | The Laryngoscope, 2024-02, Vol.134 (2), p.803-806 |
| issn | 0023-852X 1531-4995 1531-4995 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2860616807 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Journals |
| subjects | Ambulatory Surgical Procedures cost‐effectiveness Humans Laryngeal Diseases - surgery Laryngoscopes Larynx - surgery Laser Therapy Lasers micro laryngeal surgery Operating Rooms recurrent respiratory papillomatosis Surgery Sustainable development waste audit |
| title | Environmental Sustainability: Waste Audit Comparison Operating Roomand In‐Office Laryngeal Surgery |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T17%3A17%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Environmental%20Sustainability:%20Waste%20Audit%20Comparison%20Operating%20Roomand%20In%E2%80%90Office%20Laryngeal%20Surgery&rft.jtitle=The%20Laryngoscope&rft.au=Anderson,%20Jennifer&rft.date=2024-02&rft.volume=134&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=803&rft.epage=806&rft.pages=803-806&rft.issn=0023-852X&rft.eissn=1531-4995&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/lary.31005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2860616807%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2915454429&rft_id=info:pmid/37658737&rfr_iscdi=true |