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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |