Cargando…

Interventions for sustainable surgery: a systematic review

To systematically evaluate interventions designed to improve the sustainability of surgical practice with respect to their environmental and financial impact. BACKGROUND: Surgery contributes significantly to emissions attributed to healthcare due to its high resource and energy use. Several interven...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lam, Kyle, Gadi, Nishita, Acharya, Amish, Winter Beatty, Jasmine, Darzi, Ara, Purkayastha, Sanjay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10389594/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37042311
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000000359
_version_ 1785082336143998976
author Lam, Kyle
Gadi, Nishita
Acharya, Amish
Winter Beatty, Jasmine
Darzi, Ara
Purkayastha, Sanjay
author_facet Lam, Kyle
Gadi, Nishita
Acharya, Amish
Winter Beatty, Jasmine
Darzi, Ara
Purkayastha, Sanjay
author_sort Lam, Kyle
collection PubMed
description To systematically evaluate interventions designed to improve the sustainability of surgical practice with respect to their environmental and financial impact. BACKGROUND: Surgery contributes significantly to emissions attributed to healthcare due to its high resource and energy use. Several interventions across the operative pathway have, therefore, been trialed to minimize this impact. Few comparisons of the environmental and financial effects of these interventions exist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of studies published up to 2nd February 2022 describing interventions to increase surgical sustainability was undertaken. Articles regarding the environmental impact of only anesthetic agents were excluded. Data regarding environmental and financial outcomes were extracted with a quality assessment completed dependent upon the study design. RESULTS: In all, 1162 articles were retrieved, of which 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty-five interventions were described, which were categorized into five domains: ‘reduce and rationalize’, ‘reusable equipment and textiles’, ‘recycling and waste segregation’, ‘anesthetic alternatives’, and ‘other’. Eleven of the 21 studies examined reusable devices; those demonstrating a benefit reported 40–66% lower emissions than with single-use alternatives. In studies not showing a lower carbon footprint, the reduction in manufacturing emissions was offset by the high environmental impact of local fossil fuel-based energy required for sterilization. The per use monetary cost of reusable equipment was 47–83% of the single-use equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: A narrow repertoire of interventions to improve the environmental sustainability of surgery has been trialed. The majority focuses on reusable equipment. Emissions and cost data are limited, with longitudinal impacts rarely investigated. Real-world appraisals will facilitate implementation, as will an understanding of how sustainability impacts surgical decision-making.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10389594
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103895942023-08-01 Interventions for sustainable surgery: a systematic review Lam, Kyle Gadi, Nishita Acharya, Amish Winter Beatty, Jasmine Darzi, Ara Purkayastha, Sanjay Int J Surg Reviews To systematically evaluate interventions designed to improve the sustainability of surgical practice with respect to their environmental and financial impact. BACKGROUND: Surgery contributes significantly to emissions attributed to healthcare due to its high resource and energy use. Several interventions across the operative pathway have, therefore, been trialed to minimize this impact. Few comparisons of the environmental and financial effects of these interventions exist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of studies published up to 2nd February 2022 describing interventions to increase surgical sustainability was undertaken. Articles regarding the environmental impact of only anesthetic agents were excluded. Data regarding environmental and financial outcomes were extracted with a quality assessment completed dependent upon the study design. RESULTS: In all, 1162 articles were retrieved, of which 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty-five interventions were described, which were categorized into five domains: ‘reduce and rationalize’, ‘reusable equipment and textiles’, ‘recycling and waste segregation’, ‘anesthetic alternatives’, and ‘other’. Eleven of the 21 studies examined reusable devices; those demonstrating a benefit reported 40–66% lower emissions than with single-use alternatives. In studies not showing a lower carbon footprint, the reduction in manufacturing emissions was offset by the high environmental impact of local fossil fuel-based energy required for sterilization. The per use monetary cost of reusable equipment was 47–83% of the single-use equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: A narrow repertoire of interventions to improve the environmental sustainability of surgery has been trialed. The majority focuses on reusable equipment. Emissions and cost data are limited, with longitudinal impacts rarely investigated. Real-world appraisals will facilitate implementation, as will an understanding of how sustainability impacts surgical decision-making. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023-04-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10389594/ /pubmed/37042311 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000000359 Text en Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
spellingShingle Reviews
Lam, Kyle
Gadi, Nishita
Acharya, Amish
Winter Beatty, Jasmine
Darzi, Ara
Purkayastha, Sanjay
Interventions for sustainable surgery: a systematic review
title Interventions for sustainable surgery: a systematic review
title_full Interventions for sustainable surgery: a systematic review
title_fullStr Interventions for sustainable surgery: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Interventions for sustainable surgery: a systematic review
title_short Interventions for sustainable surgery: a systematic review
title_sort interventions for sustainable surgery: a systematic review
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10389594/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37042311
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000000359
work_keys_str_mv AT lamkyle interventionsforsustainablesurgeryasystematicreview
AT gadinishita interventionsforsustainablesurgeryasystematicreview
AT acharyaamish interventionsforsustainablesurgeryasystematicreview
AT winterbeattyjasmine interventionsforsustainablesurgeryasystematicreview
AT darziara interventionsforsustainablesurgeryasystematicreview
AT purkayasthasanjay interventionsforsustainablesurgeryasystematicreview