Premium
Carbon footprint of robotically‐assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: a comparison
Author(s) -
Woods Demetrius L.,
McAndrew Thomas,
Nevadunsky Nicole,
Hou June Y.,
Goldberg Gary,
YiShin Kuo Dennis,
Isani Sara
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
the international journal of medical robotics and computer assisted surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.556
H-Index - 53
eISSN - 1478-596X
pISSN - 1478-5951
DOI - 10.1002/rcs.1640
Subject(s) - carbon footprint , laparotomy , laparoscopy , greenhouse gas , modalities , environmental science , carbon dioxide , medicine , footprint , operations management , surgery , engineering , chemistry , ecology , social science , organic chemistry , sociology , biology , paleontology
Background To date there have been no comprehensive, comparative assessments of the environmental impact of surgical modalities. Our study seeks to quantify and compare the total greenhouse gas emissions, or 'carbon footprint', attributable to three surgical modalities. Methods A review of 150 staging procedures, employing laparotomy (LAP), conventional laparoscopy (LSC) or robotically‐assisted laparoscopy (RA‐LSC), was performed. The solid waste generated (kg) and energy consumed (kWh) during each case were quantified and converted into their equivalent mass of carbon dioxide (kg CO 2 e) release into the environment. The carbon footprint is the sum of the waste production and energy consumption during each surgery (kg CO 2 e). Results The total carbon footprint of a RA‐LSC procedure is 40.3 kg CO 2 e/patient ( p < 0.01). This represents a 38% increase over that of LSC (29.2 kg CO 2 e/patient; p < 0.01) and a 77% increase over LAP (22.7 kg CO 2 e/patient; p < 0.01). Conclusions Our results provide clinicians, administrators and policy‐makers with knowledge of the environmental impact of their decisions to facilitate adoption of sustainable practices. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.