We sought to calculate the waste generated by cleft lip and palate (CL/P) procedures and to increase awareness of the environmental impact of our speciality.
Design
Waste from 5 CL/P procedures was categorised into 5 streams and weighed. A carbon calculator tool was used to convert weight of waste in to estimated carbon emission over a 12-month period.
Setting
The study was carried out in a university teaching hospital.
Patients and Participants
This was an assessment of the waste produced from 5 paediatric CL/P procedures.
Main Outcome Measures
Weight of waste produced as result of CL/P procedures, measured in kilograms (kg); weight of CO2, measured in kg.
Results
We found that 768.5 kg of surgical waste was generated by CL/P procedures at our centre annually. This equates to 2653 kg of CO2.
Conclusions
This study serves as a reminder of surgeons’ responsibility to oversee how the waste we produce is disposed of.
LenzenMMalikALiM, et al.The environmental footprint of health care: a global assessment. Lancet Planet Health. 2020;4(7):e271-e279. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(20)30121-2
ChasseigneVLeguelinel-BlacheGNguyenTL, et al.Assessing the costs of disposable and reusable supplies wasted during surgeries. Int J Surg. 2018 May;53:18-23. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.02.004
6.
NarayananHRaistrickCPierceJMTSheltonC. Carbon footprint of inhalational and total intravenous anaesthesia for paediatric anaesthesia: a modelling study. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2022;129(2):231-243. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.04.022
7.
Health Service Executive. Green Healthcare Best Practice Guides. 5 October, 2024. Accessed 5 October, 2024. https://greenhealthcare.ie/resources/best-practice-guides/
ThompsonJAHeatonPCKeltonCMSitzmanTJ. National estimates of primary and secondary cleft palate surgery: results from the Kids’ Inpatient Database. Abstract. Value Health.2014;17(3):A67. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.393
13.
Department for Envronment Food and Rural Affairs. 2011 Guidelines to Defra / DECC’s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting: Methodology Paper for Emission Factors. 2011. Accessed 5 October 2024. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a795b6c40f0b642860d7670/pb13625-emission-factor-methodology-paper-110905.pdf;
14.
BrazilWCaulfieldBRieser-SchüsslerN. Understanding carbon: Making emissions information relevant. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2013;19:28-33. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2012.12.002
15.
RobinsonPNSurendranKSBLimSJRobinsonM. The carbon footprint of surgical operations: A systematic review update. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2023;105(8):692-708. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2023.0057
16.
StallNMKagomaYKBondyJNNaudieD. Surgical waste audit of 5 total knee arthroplasties. Can J Surg J Can De Chirurgie. 2013;56(2):97-102. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.015711
17.
ThielCLEckelmanMGuidoR, et al.Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol.2015;49(3):1779-1786. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1021/es504719g
18.
The Centre forSustainable Healthcare. Case Study: Introducing recycling into the operating theatres. Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust; 2012. https://networks.sustainablehealthcare.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/introducing_recycling_into_theatres_final_0_0.pdf Accessed 5 October 2024
19.
AlmukhtarABatcupCBowmanM, et al.Barriers and facilitators to sustainable operating theatres: a systematic review using the Theoretical Domains Framework. International Journal of Surgery. 2024;110(1):554-568. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000000829
20.
HsuSTheilCLMelloMJSlutzmanJE. Dumpster diving in the emergency department: Quantity and characteristics of waste at a level I trauma center. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2020;21(5). DOI:https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem
21.
KubickiMAMcGainFO'SheaCJBatesS. Auditing an intensive care unit recycling program. Critical care and resuscitation: journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine. 2015;17(2):135-140.
22.
JungbluthLGoodwinDTullFBraggeP. Barriers and facilitators to recycling waste in hospitals: A mixed methods systematic review. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances. 2024;21:200209. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2024.200209
23.
ThomasCSharpV. Understanding the normalisation of recycling behaviour and its implications for other pro-environmental behaviours: A review of social norms and recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2013;79:11-20. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.04.010
24.
OluwadipeSGarelickHMcCarthySPurchaseD. A critical review of household recycling barriers in the United Kingdom. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy. 2022;40(7):905-918. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X211060619
25.
YuJJiTACraigMMcKeeDLalondeDH. Evidence-based sterility: The evolving role of field sterility in skin and minor hand surgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open. 2019;7(11):e2481. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002481
26.
QureshiUHallmanTAArcelonaC, et al.A sustainable solution for reducing draping waste in cleft surgeries. The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal. 2024. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656241271706
27.
TaubPJOleruOMandelbaumMGSeyidovaN. Application of field sterility to safely reduce cost and waste in cleft surgery. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2023;34(7):2008-2011. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000009579
28.
JabaudonMVallabhBBacherHPBadenesRKehlF. Balancing patient needs with environmental impacts for best practices in general anesthesia: narrative review and clinical perspective. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med.2024;43(4):101389. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accpm.2024.101389
29.
BernatMBoyerARocheM, et al.Reducing the carbon footprint of general anaesthesia: a comparison of total intravenous anaesthesia vs. a mixed anaesthetic strategy in 47,157 adult patients. Anaesthesia. 2024;79(3):309-317. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.16221
