Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T05:46:02.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rationalising surgical instruments in tonsillectomy: a pilot study to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and costs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2024

Justin Jui Yuan Yeo Open the ORCID record for Justin Jui Yuan Yeo [Opens in a new window] ,
Keshav Kumar Gupta Open the ORCID record for Keshav Kumar Gupta [Opens in a new window] ,
Zahir Mughal Open the ORCID record for Zahir Mughal [Opens in a new window]  and
Chaitanya Bhatt
Justin Jui Yuan Yeo*
Affiliation:
The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Russells Hall Hospital, Pensnett Road, Dudley, DY1 2HQ, UK
Keshav Kumar Gupta
Affiliation:
The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Russells Hall Hospital, Pensnett Road, Dudley, DY1 2HQ, UK
Zahir Mughal
Affiliation:
The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Russells Hall Hospital, Pensnett Road, Dudley, DY1 2HQ, UK
Chaitanya Bhatt
Affiliation:
The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Russells Hall Hospital, Pensnett Road, Dudley, DY1 2HQ, UK
*
Corresponding author: Justin Jui Yuan Yeo; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The healthcare industry is estimated to contribute 4.4 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. This pilot study aimed to investigate the impact of rationalising surgical instruments in tonsillectomy trays on greenhouse gas emissions and costs.

Method

We conducted a prospective observational study over a six-month period. All patients who underwent tonsillectomy were included. The instruments used during the procedure and their frequency of use were counted, with the operating surgeon being unaware of the study.

Results

During the 6-month timeframe, 46 tonsillectomies were performed. From the standard tonsillectomy tray containing 38 pieces, 9 pieces were never used. The removal of unused reusable instruments resulted in an estimated total reduction of 594 g of carbon dioxide equivalents and a saving of €9.63 per operation.

Conclusion

Rationalising the contents of the surgical instrument tray can have a positive environmental impact by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are also pecuniary benefits for the National Health Service because of the potential for cost savings.

Keywords

carbon footprintsustainabilitysurgery
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 139 , Issue 1 , January 2025 , pp. 68 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Justin Jui Yuan Yeo takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Alley, R, Berntsen, T, Bindoff, NL, Chen, Z, Chidthaisong, A, Friedlingstein, P et al. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Summary for policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: https://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/climatechange/nav/IPCCreport07.pdf [10 October 2022]Google Scholar
Olivier, JGJ, Peters, JAHW. Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Hague, Netherlands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2020Google Scholar
National Centers for Environmental Information. Annual 2022 Global Climate Report. In: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202113 [14 August 2023]Google Scholar
Karliner, J, Slotterback, S, Boyd, R, Ashby, B, Steele, K. Health care's climate footprint. Climate-smart health care series green paper number one. Health care without harm, 2019. In: https://noharm-global.org/sites/default/files/documents-files/5961/HealthCaresClimateFootprint_092319.pdf [9 August 2023]Google Scholar
Tennison, I, Roschnik, S, Ashby, B, Boyd, R, Hamilton, I, Oreszczyn, T et al. Health care's response to climate change: a carbon footprint assessment of the NHS in England. Lancet Planet Health 2021;5:e84–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizan, C, Steinbach, I, Nicholson, R, Lillywhite, R, Reed, M, Bhutta, MF. The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review. Ann Surg 2020;272:986–95Google ScholarPubMed
NHS Digital Hospital admitted patient care activity, 2016–17. In: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-admitted-patient-care-activity/2016-17 [1 August 2023]Google Scholar
Rizan, C, Lillywhite, R, Reed, M, Bhutta, MF. The carbon footprint of products used in five common surgical operations: identifying contributing products and processes. J R Soc Med 2023;116:199–213CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizan, C, Lillywhite, R, Reed, M, Bhutta, MF. Minimising carbon and financial costs of steam sterilisation and packaging of reusable surgical instruments. Br J Surg 2022;109:200–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
UK Government Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting. In: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2019 [8 June 2020]Google Scholar
Small World Consulting. Carbon Factors Dataset Version 1.5. Lancaster: Small World Consulting, Lancaster University, 2018Google Scholar
Jones, C, Hammond, G. Inventory of carbon and energy v3.0. In: https://circularecology.com/embodied-carbon-footprint-database.html [8 June 2020]Google Scholar
Rizan, C, Bhutta, MF, Reed, M, Lillywhite, R. The carbon footprint of waste streams in a UK hospital. J Clean Prod 2021;286:125446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. Intercollegiate green theatre checklist compendium of evidence, 2022. In: https://www.rcsed.ac.uk/professional-support-development-resources/environmental-sustainability-and-surgery/green-theatre-checklist [1 August 2023]Google Scholar
Knowles, M, Gay, SS, Konchan, SK, Deshpande, V, Farber, MA, Wood, BC et al. Data analysis of vascular surgery instrument trays yielded large cost and efficiency savings. J Vasc Surg 2020;73:2144–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stockert, EW, Langerman, A. Assessing the magnitude and costs of intraoperative inefficiencies attributable to surgical instrument trays. J Am Coll Surg 2014;219:646–55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Meter, MM, Adam, RA. Costs associated with instrument sterilization in gynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215:652.e1–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thiel, CL, Woods, NC, Bilec, MM. Strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from laparoscopic surgery. Am J Public Health 2018;108:158–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherman, JD, Raibley, LA, Eckelman, MJ. Life cycle assessment and costing methods for device procurement: comparing reusable and single-use disposable laryngoscopes. Anesth Analg 2018;127:434–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Virginia Mason Institute. Case study: surgical setup reduction improves patient outcomes, 2020. In: https://www.virginiamasoninstitute.org/resource/surgical-setup-reduction-improves-patient-outcomes/ [1 August 2023]Google Scholar
Farrokhi, FR, Gunther, M, Williams, B, Blackmore, CC. Application of lean methodology for improved quality and efficiency in operating room instrument availability. J Healthc Qual 2015;37:277–86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heslin, MJ, Doster, BE, Daily, SL, Waldrum, MR, Boudreaux, AM, Smith, AB et al. Durable improvements in efficiency, safety, and satisfaction in the operating room. J Am Coll Surg 2008;206:1083–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed