The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations: A Systematic Review

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA AND OBJECTIVES:Operating theatres are typically the most resource-intensive area of a hospital, 3–6 times more energy-intensive than the rest of the hospital and a major contributor of waste. The primary objective of this systematic review was to evaluate existing literatu...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of surgery 2020-12, Vol.272 (6), p.986-995
Hauptverfasser: Rizan, Chantelle, Steinbach, Ingeborg, Nicholson, Rosamond, Lillywhite, Rob, Reed, Malcolm, Bhutta, Mahmood F.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 995
container_issue 6
container_start_page 986
container_title Annals of surgery
container_volume 272
creator Rizan, Chantelle
Steinbach, Ingeborg
Nicholson, Rosamond
Lillywhite, Rob
Reed, Malcolm
Bhutta, Mahmood F.
description SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA AND OBJECTIVES:Operating theatres are typically the most resource-intensive area of a hospital, 3–6 times more energy-intensive than the rest of the hospital and a major contributor of waste. The primary objective of this systematic review was to evaluate existing literature calculating the carbon footprint of surgical operations, determining opportunities for improving the environmental impact of surgery. METHODS:A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The Cochrane Database, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched and inclusion criteria applied. The study endpoints were extracted and compared, with the risk of bias determined. RESULTS:A total of 4604 records were identified, and 8 were eligible for inclusion. This review found that the carbon footprint of a single operation ranged 6–814 kg carbon dioxide equivalents. The studies found that major carbon hotspots within the examined operating theatres were electricity use, and procurement of consumables. It was possible to reduce the carbon footprint of surgery through improving energy-efficiency of theatres, using reusable or reprocessed surgical devices and streamlining processes. There were significant methodological limitations within included studies. CONCLUSIONS:Future research should focus on optimizing the carbon footprint of operating theatres through streamlining operations, expanding assessments to other surgical contexts, and determining ways to reduce the footprint through targeting carbon hotspots.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003951
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_webof</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_webofscience_primary_000613410600037CitationCount</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2411581409</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3501-ede69aa4863dcbd618462ba8f2d8cfb0386fc09937646e156f0660c297606c233</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkFFrFDEUhYModq3-A5F5FGTqvUkmk_HJZbCtsFBw6_OQydxxR2cna5Lp0n9vtltL8UENhHDDd87lHMZeI5whVOX79Wp5Bo-OqAp8whZYcJ0jSnjKFoffXFaCn7AXIXwHQKmhfM5OBC9QcQEL9vF6Q1ltfOum7Ny5uPPDFDPXZ-vZfxusGbOrHXkTBzeFD9kyW9-GSNs02-wL3Qy0f8me9WYM9Or-PWVfzz9d15f56uric71c5VYUgDl1pCpjpFais22nUEvFW6N73mnbtyC06i1UlSiVVISF6kEpsLwqFSjLhThlb4--O-9-zhRisx2CpXE0E7k5NFwiFjrlrhIqj6j1LgRPfZNSbY2_bRCaQ3dN6q75s7ske3O_YW631D2IfpeVAH0E9tS6PtiBJksPWLJRKCSCOhiW9RDvWqvdPMUkfff_0keL3BjJhx_jvCffbMiMcfOvEPIv0jtOFTrnwAF5GvJ0OYpf9Zao4Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2411581409</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations: A Systematic Review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload</source><source>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2020&lt;img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /&gt;</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Rizan, Chantelle ; Steinbach, Ingeborg ; Nicholson, Rosamond ; Lillywhite, Rob ; Reed, Malcolm ; Bhutta, Mahmood F.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rizan, Chantelle ; Steinbach, Ingeborg ; Nicholson, Rosamond ; Lillywhite, Rob ; Reed, Malcolm ; Bhutta, Mahmood F.</creatorcontrib><description>SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA AND OBJECTIVES:Operating theatres are typically the most resource-intensive area of a hospital, 3–6 times more energy-intensive than the rest of the hospital and a major contributor of waste. The primary objective of this systematic review was to evaluate existing literature calculating the carbon footprint of surgical operations, determining opportunities for improving the environmental impact of surgery. METHODS:A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The Cochrane Database, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched and inclusion criteria applied. The study endpoints were extracted and compared, with the risk of bias determined. RESULTS:A total of 4604 records were identified, and 8 were eligible for inclusion. This review found that the carbon footprint of a single operation ranged 6–814 kg carbon dioxide equivalents. The studies found that major carbon hotspots within the examined operating theatres were electricity use, and procurement of consumables. It was possible to reduce the carbon footprint of surgery through improving energy-efficiency of theatres, using reusable or reprocessed surgical devices and streamlining processes. There were significant methodological limitations within included studies. CONCLUSIONS:Future research should focus on optimizing the carbon footprint of operating theatres through streamlining operations, expanding assessments to other surgical contexts, and determining ways to reduce the footprint through targeting carbon hotspots.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-4932</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1528-1140</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003951</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32516230</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>PHILADELPHIA: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</publisher><subject>Carbon Footprint ; Humans ; Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine ; Operating Rooms ; Science &amp; Technology ; Surgery ; Surgical Procedures, Operative</subject><ispartof>Annals of surgery, 2020-12, Vol.272 (6), p.986-995</ispartof><rights>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>true</woscitedreferencessubscribed><woscitedreferencescount>170</woscitedreferencescount><woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid>wos000613410600037</woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3501-ede69aa4863dcbd618462ba8f2d8cfb0386fc09937646e156f0660c297606c233</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4688-1670 ; 0000-0002-1820-3522 ; 0000-0001-7442-2132</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27929,27930,28253</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32516230$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rizan, Chantelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steinbach, Ingeborg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nicholson, Rosamond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lillywhite, Rob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reed, Malcolm</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhutta, Mahmood F.</creatorcontrib><title>The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations: A Systematic Review</title><title>Annals of surgery</title><addtitle>ANN SURG</addtitle><addtitle>Ann Surg</addtitle><description>SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA AND OBJECTIVES:Operating theatres are typically the most resource-intensive area of a hospital, 3–6 times more energy-intensive than the rest of the hospital and a major contributor of waste. The primary objective of this systematic review was to evaluate existing literature calculating the carbon footprint of surgical operations, determining opportunities for improving the environmental impact of surgery. METHODS:A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The Cochrane Database, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched and inclusion criteria applied. The study endpoints were extracted and compared, with the risk of bias determined. RESULTS:A total of 4604 records were identified, and 8 were eligible for inclusion. This review found that the carbon footprint of a single operation ranged 6–814 kg carbon dioxide equivalents. The studies found that major carbon hotspots within the examined operating theatres were electricity use, and procurement of consumables. It was possible to reduce the carbon footprint of surgery through improving energy-efficiency of theatres, using reusable or reprocessed surgical devices and streamlining processes. There were significant methodological limitations within included studies. CONCLUSIONS:Future research should focus on optimizing the carbon footprint of operating theatres through streamlining operations, expanding assessments to other surgical contexts, and determining ways to reduce the footprint through targeting carbon hotspots.</description><subject>Carbon Footprint</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine</subject><subject>Operating Rooms</subject><subject>Science &amp; Technology</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Procedures, Operative</subject><issn>0003-4932</issn><issn>1528-1140</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AOWDO</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkFFrFDEUhYModq3-A5F5FGTqvUkmk_HJZbCtsFBw6_OQydxxR2cna5Lp0n9vtltL8UENhHDDd87lHMZeI5whVOX79Wp5Bo-OqAp8whZYcJ0jSnjKFoffXFaCn7AXIXwHQKmhfM5OBC9QcQEL9vF6Q1ltfOum7Ny5uPPDFDPXZ-vZfxusGbOrHXkTBzeFD9kyW9-GSNs02-wL3Qy0f8me9WYM9Or-PWVfzz9d15f56uric71c5VYUgDl1pCpjpFais22nUEvFW6N73mnbtyC06i1UlSiVVISF6kEpsLwqFSjLhThlb4--O-9-zhRisx2CpXE0E7k5NFwiFjrlrhIqj6j1LgRPfZNSbY2_bRCaQ3dN6q75s7ske3O_YW631D2IfpeVAH0E9tS6PtiBJksPWLJRKCSCOhiW9RDvWqvdPMUkfff_0keL3BjJhx_jvCffbMiMcfOvEPIv0jtOFTrnwAF5GvJ0OYpf9Zao4Q</recordid><startdate>20201201</startdate><enddate>20201201</enddate><creator>Rizan, Chantelle</creator><creator>Steinbach, Ingeborg</creator><creator>Nicholson, Rosamond</creator><creator>Lillywhite, Rob</creator><creator>Reed, Malcolm</creator><creator>Bhutta, Mahmood F.</creator><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</general><general>Copyright Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved</general><scope>AOWDO</scope><scope>BLEPL</scope><scope>DTL</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>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4688-1670</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1820-3522</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7442-2132</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201201</creationdate><title>The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations: A Systematic Review</title><author>Rizan, Chantelle ; Steinbach, Ingeborg ; Nicholson, Rosamond ; Lillywhite, Rob ; Reed, Malcolm ; Bhutta, Mahmood F.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3501-ede69aa4863dcbd618462ba8f2d8cfb0386fc09937646e156f0660c297606c233</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Carbon Footprint</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine</topic><topic>Operating Rooms</topic><topic>Science &amp; Technology</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Procedures, Operative</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rizan, Chantelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steinbach, Ingeborg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nicholson, Rosamond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lillywhite, Rob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reed, Malcolm</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhutta, Mahmood F.</creatorcontrib><collection>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2020</collection><collection>Web of Science Core Collection</collection><collection>Science Citation Index Expanded</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Annals of surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rizan, Chantelle</au><au>Steinbach, Ingeborg</au><au>Nicholson, Rosamond</au><au>Lillywhite, Rob</au><au>Reed, Malcolm</au><au>Bhutta, Mahmood F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations: A Systematic Review</atitle><jtitle>Annals of surgery</jtitle><stitle>ANN SURG</stitle><addtitle>Ann Surg</addtitle><date>2020-12-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>272</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>986</spage><epage>995</epage><pages>986-995</pages><issn>0003-4932</issn><eissn>1528-1140</eissn><abstract>SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA AND OBJECTIVES:Operating theatres are typically the most resource-intensive area of a hospital, 3–6 times more energy-intensive than the rest of the hospital and a major contributor of waste. The primary objective of this systematic review was to evaluate existing literature calculating the carbon footprint of surgical operations, determining opportunities for improving the environmental impact of surgery. METHODS:A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The Cochrane Database, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched and inclusion criteria applied. The study endpoints were extracted and compared, with the risk of bias determined. RESULTS:A total of 4604 records were identified, and 8 were eligible for inclusion. This review found that the carbon footprint of a single operation ranged 6–814 kg carbon dioxide equivalents. The studies found that major carbon hotspots within the examined operating theatres were electricity use, and procurement of consumables. It was possible to reduce the carbon footprint of surgery through improving energy-efficiency of theatres, using reusable or reprocessed surgical devices and streamlining processes. There were significant methodological limitations within included studies. CONCLUSIONS:Future research should focus on optimizing the carbon footprint of operating theatres through streamlining operations, expanding assessments to other surgical contexts, and determining ways to reduce the footprint through targeting carbon hotspots.</abstract><cop>PHILADELPHIA</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</pub><pmid>32516230</pmid><doi>10.1097/SLA.0000000000003951</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4688-1670</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1820-3522</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7442-2132</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-4932
ispartof Annals of surgery, 2020-12, Vol.272 (6), p.986-995
issn 0003-4932
1528-1140
language eng
recordid cdi_webofscience_primary_000613410600037CitationCount
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload; Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2020<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" />; PubMed Central
subjects Carbon Footprint
Humans
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Operating Rooms
Science & Technology
Surgery
Surgical Procedures, Operative
title The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations: A Systematic Review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-11T10%3A17%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_webof&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Carbon%20Footprint%20of%20Surgical%20Operations:%20A%20Systematic%20Review&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20surgery&rft.au=Rizan,%20Chantelle&rft.date=2020-12-01&rft.volume=272&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=986&rft.epage=995&rft.pages=986-995&rft.issn=0003-4932&rft.eissn=1528-1140&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003951&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_webof%3E2411581409%3C/proquest_webof%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2411581409&rft_id=info:pmid/32516230&rfr_iscdi=true