The ongoing climate changes, high air and noise pollution have significant impact on humans’ health. This influence is especially visible in otolaryngology, which focuses on respiratory and hearing systems disfunctions. However, even though surgeries are done in response to diseases related to climate changes, they also have a negative impact on the environment, mostly connected with the inherence of single-use fossil fuel derived polymers. This leads to a self-perpetuating emission of greenhouse gases, as human beings developed a lot of synthetic materials to combat climate change derived dysfunctions, which itself endangers human health in a chaotic circular chain. Mitigating issues arising from using synthetic plastics would be possible by imparting biodegradable polymers from renewable resources. Nowadays, sustainable polymers are adopted mostly in emerging fields of medicine, such as 3D printing, tissue engineering of drug delivery systems. Sustainable polymers are particularly useful in otolaryngology, e.g., in the form of nasal drug eluting stents or bone substitutions. Nevertheless, some limitations in wider usage of renewable polymers in surgery should also be underlined, mainly related to lack of legislation, clinical considerations, and also inadequate materials’ circularity. Herein we briefly overviewed commonly used polymers in general surgery and otolaryngology, defined the trends in sustainable polymer usage in these fields, and highlighted the limitations in renewable polymers applications together with possible solutions. What this short review emphasizes, is that the significant increase in interest and demand for sustainable solutions will revolutionize the future of clinical treatments, where contribution to climate change and waste management will be centered in decision making protocols.
ZhengJSuhS. Strategies to reduce the global carbon footprint of plastics. Nat Clim Change2019; 9: 374–378. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-019-0459-z.
2.
AL-OqlaFM. Biomaterial hierarchy selection framework under uncertainty for more reliable sustainable green products. JOM2023; 75: 2187–2198. DOI: 10.1007/s11837-023-05797-4.
3.
BaranwalJBarseBFaisA, et al.Biopolymer: a sustainable material for food and medical applications. Polymers2022; 14: 983. DOI: 10.3390/polym14050983.
4.
RocqueRJBeaudoinCNdjaboueR, et al.Health effects of climate change: an overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open2021; 11: e046333. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046333.
5.
KimJWaughDWZaitchikBF, et al.Climate change, the environment, and rhinologic disease. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol2023; 13: 865–876. DOI: 10.1002/alr.23128.
TongMWondmagegnBXiangJ, et al.Hospitalization costs of respiratory diseases attributable to temperature in Australia and projections for future costs in the 2030s and 2050s under climate change. Int J Environ Res Publ Health2022; 19: 9706. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159706.
8.
DilgerAEBergmarkRW. Environmental sustainability in otolaryngologic surgery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2023; 31: 238–243. DOI: 10.1097/MOO.0000000000000888.
9.
TaN. ENT in the context of global health. Ann R Coll Surg Engl2019; 101: 93–96. DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2018.0138.
10.
HervochonRAtallahSLevivienS, et al.Impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on ENT surgical volume. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryng Head Neck Dis2020; 137: 269–271. DOI: 10.1016/j.anorl.2020.08.006.
11.
JosephBJamesJKalarikkalN, et al.Recycling of medical plastics. Adv Ind Eng Polym Res2021; 4: 199–208. DOI: 10.1016/j.aiepr.2021.06.003.
12.
SiwalSSChaudharyGSainiAK, et al.Key ingredients and recycling strategy of personal protective equipment (PPE): towards sustainable solution for the COVID-19 like pandemics. J Environ Chem Eng2021; 9: 106284. DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2021.106284.
13.
Zambrano-MonserrateMARuanoMASanchez-AlcaldeL. Indirect effects of COVID-19 on the environment. Sci Total Environ2020; 728: 138813. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138813.
14.
SomaniMSrivastavaANGummadivalliSK, et al.Indirect implications of COVID-19 towards sustainable environment: an investigation in Indian context. Bioresour Technol Rep2020; 11: 100491. DOI: 10.1016/j.biteb.2020.100491.
15.
KagomaYStallNRubinsteinE, et al.People, planet and profits: the case for greening operating rooms. Can Med Assoc J2012; 184: 1905–1911. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.112139.
16.
WuSCerceoE. Sustainability initiatives in the operating room. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Saf2021; 47: 663–672. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2021.06.010.
17.
GiakoumakisGPolitiDSidirasD. Medical waste treatment technologies for energy, fuels, and materials production: a review. Energies2021; 14: 8065. DOI: 10.3390/en14238065.
18.
AttrahMElmanadelyAAkterD, et al.A review on medical waste management: treatment, recycling, and disposal options. Environments2022; 9: 146. DOI: 10.3390/environments9110146.
19.
Janik-KarpinskaEBrancaleoniRNiemcewiczM, et al.Healthcare waste-A serious problem for global health. Healthcare2023; 11: 242. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11020242.
20.
SinghNTangYOgunseitanOA. Environmentally sustainable management of used personal protective equipment. Environ Sci Technol2020; 54: 8500–8502. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03022.
21.
TinoRMooreRAntolineS, et al.COVID-19 and the role of 3D printing in medicine. 3D Print Med2020; 6: 11. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-020-00064-7.
22.
ChoongYYCTanHWPatelDC, et al.The global rise of 3D printing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat Rev Mater2020; 5: 637–639. DOI: 10.1038/s41578-020-00234-3.
23.
Pérez DavilaSGonzález RodríguezLChiussiS, et al.How to sterilize polylactic acid based medical devices?Polymers2021; 13: 2115. DOI: 10.3390/polym13132115.
24.
NeijhoftJHenrichDKammererA, et al.Sterilization of PLA after fused filament fabrication 3D printing: evaluation on inherent sterility and the impossibility of autoclavation. Polymers2023; 15: 369. DOI: 10.3390/polym15020369.
25.
SuarezAFordEVendittiR, et al.Is sugarcane-based polyethylene a good alternative to fight climate change?J Clean Prod2023; 395: 136432. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136432.
26.
MendietaCMVallejosMEFelissiaFE, et al.Review: bio-polyethylene from wood wastes. J Polym Environ2020; 28: 1–16. DOI: 10.1007/s10924-019-01582-0.
27.
MorettiCJungingerMShenL. Environmental life cycle assessment of polypropylene made from used cooking oil. Resour Conserv Recycl2020; 157: 104750. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104750.
28.
ChenLPeltonREOSmithTM. Comparative life cycle assessment of fossil and bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. J Clean Prod2016; 137: 667–676. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.094.
WickramasingheMLDiasGJPremadasaKMGP. A novel classification of bone graft materials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater2022; 110: 1724–1749. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.35029.
NagarRRDeshmukhPT. An overview of the tympanostomy tube. Cureus2022; 14(10): e30166. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.30166.
36.
MagdyMElmowafyEElassalM, et al.Localized drug delivery to the middle ear: recent advances and perspectives for the treatment of middle and inner ear diseases. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol2022; 69: 103149. DOI: 10.1016/j.jddst.2022.103149.
MasseyCJSinghA. Advances in absorbable biomaterials and nasal packing. Otolaryngol Clin2017; 50: 545–563. DOI: 10.1016/j.otc.2017.01.006.
39.
LauJElhassanHASinghN. History of intranasal splints. J Laryngol Otol2018; 132: 198–201. DOI: 10.1017/S0022215118000142.
40.
StowJBoydAECabreraJ. Tracheostomy tubes. In: Emergency Management of the Hi‐Tech Patient in Acute and Critical Care. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2021, pp. 347–372.
41.
LeonhardMMoserDReumuellerA, et al.Comparison of biofilm formation on new Phonax and Provox 2 voice prostheses-A pilot study. Head Neck2009; 32(7): 886–895. DOI: 10.1002/hed.21276.
42.
MallurPSRosenCA. Vocal fold injection: review of indications, techniques, and materials for augmentation. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol2010; 3: 177. DOI: 10.3342/ceo.2010.3.4.177.
43.
GarebBVan BakelenNBVissinkA, et al.Titanium or biodegradable osteosynthesis in maxillofacial surgery? In vitro and in vivo performances. Polymers2022; 14: 2782. DOI: 10.3390/polym14142782.
44.
McMillanAMcMillanNGuptaN, et al.3D bioprinting in otolaryngology: a review. Adv Healthcare Mater2023; 12. DOI: 10.1002/adhm.202203268.
45.
ZareMGhomiERVenkatramanPD, et al.Silicone‐based biomaterials for biomedical applications: antimicrobial strategies and 3D printing technologies. J Appl Polym Sci2021; 138: 50969. DOI: 10.1002/app.50969.
46.
RoinaYAuberFHocquetD, et al.ePTFE functionalization for medical applications. Mater Today Chem2021; 20: 100412. DOI: 10.1016/j.mtchem.2020.100412.
47.
JacobsonREGranvilleMHatgisJ, et al.Low Volume vertebral augmentation with cortoss cement for treatment of high degree vertebral compression fractures and vertebra plana. Cureus2017; 9(2). DOI: 10.7759/cureus.1058.
48.
LuY-CHsuL-ILinC-F, et al.Biomechanical characteristics of self-expanding sinus stents during crimping and deployment_A comparison between different biomaterials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2023; 138: 105669. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2023.105669.
49.
TochigiKEbiharaTOmuraK, et al.Nasal Packing materials and placement duration on wound healing in nasal mucosa: an animal study. Laryngoscope2023: 1–7. DOI: 10.1002/lary.30865.
50.
KimS-DHongS-LKimM-J, et al.Effectiveness of hemostatic gelatin sponge as a packing material after septoplasty: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. Auris Nasus Larynx2018; 45: 286–290. DOI: 10.1016/j.anl.2017.05.007.
51.
ZeitelsSMLombardoPJChavesJL, et al.Vocal fold injection of absorbable materials: a histologic analysis with clinical ramifications. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol2019; 128: 71S–81S. DOI: 10.1177/0003489418805503.
52.
RameauAHongRSDjalilianH, et al.New medical device and therapeutic approvals in otolaryngology: state of the art review of 2019. OTO Open2020; 4: 2. DOI: 10.1177/2473974X20932506.
53.
BrennerMJShensonJARoseAS, et al.New medical device and therapeutic approvals in otolaryngology: state of the art review 2020. OTO Open2021; 5: 4. DOI: 10.1177/2473974X211057035.
54.
GnatowskiPGwizdałaKKurdynA, et al.Investigation on filaments for 3D printing of nasal septum cartilage implant. Materials2023; 16: 3534. DOI: 10.3390/ma16093534.
55.
SzarlejPCarayonIGnatowskiP, et al.Composite polyurethane-polylactide (PUR/PLA) flexible filaments for 3D fused filament fabrication (FFF) of antibacterial wound dressings for skin regeneration. Materials2021; 14: 6054. DOI: 10.3390/ma14206054.
56.
HaryńskaAKucinska-LipkaJSulowskaA, et al.Medical-grade PCL based polyurethane system for FDM 3D printing-characterization and fabrication. Materials2019; 12: 887. DOI: 10.3390/ma12060887.
57.
BahúJOde AndradeLRMde Melo BarbosaR, et al.Plant polysaccharides in engineered pharmaceutical gels. Bioengineering2022; 9: 376. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9080376.
58.
BlacheUFordEMHaB, et al.Engineered hydrogels for mechanobiology. Nat Rev Methods Primers2022; 2: 98. DOI: 10.1038/s43586-022-00179-7.
59.
HuangZZhouBWangD, et al.Comparison of bioabsorbable steroid-eluting sinus stents versus nasopore after endoscopic sinus surgery: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, single-blinded clinical trial. Ear Nose Throat J2022; 101: 260–267. DOI: 10.1177/0145561320947632.
60.
LanXLiangYVyhlidalM, et al.In vitro maturation and in vivo stability of bioprinted human nasal cartilage. J Tissue Eng2022; 13: 204173142210863. DOI: 10.1177/20417314221086368.
61.
SiracusaVBlancoI. Bio-polyethylene (Bio-PE), bio-polypropylene (Bio-PP) and bio-poly(ethylene terephthalate) (Bio-PET): recent developments in bio-based polymers analogous to petroleum-derived ones for packaging and engineering applications. Polymers2020; 12: 1641. DOI: 10.3390/polym12081641.
62.
ZhouZLaPointeAMShafferTD, et al.Nature-inspired methylated polyhydroxybutyrates from C1 and C4 feedstocks. Nat Chem2023; 15: 856–861. DOI: 10.1038/s41557-023-01187-0.
63.
ShogrenRWoodDOrtsW, et al.Plant-based materials and transitioning to a circular economy. Sustain Prod Consum2019; 19: 194–215. DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2019.04.007.
64.
KollerMMukherjeeA. A new wave of industrialization of PHA biopolyesters. Bioengineering2022; 9: 74. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9020074.
65.
NelsonTFBaumgartnerRJaggiM, et al.Biodegradation of poly(butylene succinate) in soil laboratory incubations assessed by stable carbon isotope labelling. Nat Commun2022; 13: 5691. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-33064-8.
66.
AliottaLSeggianiMLazzeriA, et al.A brief review of poly (butylene succinate) (PBS) and its main copolymers: synthesis, blends, composites, biodegradability, and applications. Polymers2022; 14: 844. DOI: 10.3390/polym14040844.
67.
OsthellerM-EBalakrishnanNKBeukenbergK, et al.Pilot-scale melt electrospinning of polybutylene succinate fiber mats for a biobased and biodegradable face mask. Polymers2023; 15: 2936. DOI: 10.3390/polym15132936.
68.
HaryńskaACarayonIKosmelaP, et al.Processing of polyester-urethane filament and characterization of FFF 3D printed elastic porous structures with potential in cancellous bone tissue engineering. Materials2020; 13: 4457. DOI: 10.3390/ma13194457.
69.
HajjajiMAlaguiAJolyN, et al.β-chitosan-clay films: characterization and antibacterial study using response surface methodology. Polym Renew Resour2022; 13: 223–242. DOI: 10.1177/20412479221128967.
70.
BragaDBezerraPLimaA, et al.Chitosan-based films reinforced with cellulose nanofibrils isolated from Euterpe oleraceae MART. Polym Renew Resour2021; 12: 46–59. DOI: 10.1177/20412479211008747.
71.
CemkaZSzarlejPSzarlejE, et al.Hydrogels based on natural polymers for cardiac applications. Chem Chem Technol2022; 16: 564–572. DOI: 10.23939/chcht16.04.564.
72.
ZaimSCherkaouiORchidH, et al.Rheological investigations of water-soluble polysaccharides extracted from Moroccan seaweed Cystoseira myriophylloides algae. Polym Renew Resour2020; 11: 49–63. DOI: 10.1177/2041247920960956.
