Carbon footprint of robotically-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: A comparison

Demetrius L. Woods, Thomas Mcandrew, Nicole S. Nevadunsky, June Y. Hou, Gary Goldberg, Dennis Yi-Shin Kuo, Sara S. Isani

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 CO2e) release into the environment. The carbon footprint is the sum of the waste production and energy consumption during each surgery (kg CO2e). Results: The total carbon footprint of a RA-LSC procedure is 40.3 kg CO2e/patient (p < 0.01). This represents a 38% increase over that of LSC (29.2 kg CO2e/patient; p < 0.01) and a 77% increase over LAP (22.7 kg CO2e/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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalInternational Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2015

Fingerprint

Carbon Footprint
Laparoscopy
Carbon footprint
Laparotomy
Administrative Personnel
Environmental impact
Solid Waste
Solid wastes
Gas emissions
Greenhouse gases
Carbon Dioxide
Surgery
Carbon dioxide
Energy utilization
Gases

Keywords

  • Endometrial cancer
  • Gynaecology
  • Robotic surgery
  • Sustainability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computer Science Applications
  • Biophysics
  • Surgery

Cite this

@article{cc7b9da2e55946908a0ed733870b9cb3,
title = "Carbon footprint of robotically-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: A comparison",
abstract = "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 CO2e) release into the environment. The carbon footprint is the sum of the waste production and energy consumption during each surgery (kg CO2e). Results: The total carbon footprint of a RA-LSC procedure is 40.3 kg CO2e/patient (p < 0.01). This represents a 38{\%} increase over that of LSC (29.2 kg CO2e/patient; p < 0.01) and a 77{\%} increase over LAP (22.7 kg CO2e/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.",
keywords = "Endometrial cancer, Gynaecology, Robotic surgery, Sustainability",
author = "Woods, {Demetrius L.} and Thomas Mcandrew and Nevadunsky, {Nicole S.} and Hou, {June Y.} and Gary Goldberg and Kuo, {Dennis Yi-Shin} and Isani, {Sara S.}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1002/rcs.1640",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery",
issn = "1478-596X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Carbon footprint of robotically-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy

T2 - A comparison

AU - Woods, Demetrius L.

AU - Mcandrew, Thomas

AU - Nevadunsky, Nicole S.

AU - Hou, June Y.

AU - Goldberg, Gary

AU - Kuo, Dennis Yi-Shin

AU - Isani, Sara S.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - 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 CO2e) release into the environment. The carbon footprint is the sum of the waste production and energy consumption during each surgery (kg CO2e). Results: The total carbon footprint of a RA-LSC procedure is 40.3 kg CO2e/patient (p < 0.01). This represents a 38% increase over that of LSC (29.2 kg CO2e/patient; p < 0.01) and a 77% increase over LAP (22.7 kg CO2e/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.

AB - 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 CO2e) release into the environment. The carbon footprint is the sum of the waste production and energy consumption during each surgery (kg CO2e). Results: The total carbon footprint of a RA-LSC procedure is 40.3 kg CO2e/patient (p < 0.01). This represents a 38% increase over that of LSC (29.2 kg CO2e/patient; p < 0.01) and a 77% increase over LAP (22.7 kg CO2e/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.

KW - Endometrial cancer

KW - Gynaecology

KW - Robotic surgery

KW - Sustainability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84923899909&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84923899909&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/rcs.1640

DO - 10.1002/rcs.1640

M3 - Article

C2 - 25708320

AN - SCOPUS:84956668920

JO - International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery

JF - International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery

SN - 1478-596X

ER -