Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38563077›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2024

Handling 'carbon footprint' in orthopaedics.

S Shah, H Morris, S Thiagarajah, A Gordon, S Sharma, P Haslam, J Garcia, F Ali

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07657039 (USE LESS, a Comparative Cohort Study of Climate Change Impact From Orthopedic Surgery.), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07657039 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

USE LESS, a Comparative Cohort Study of Climate Change Impact From Orthopedic Surgery.

TypeobservationalSponsorKarolinska InstitutetRan2025 to 2027Enrolled80ConditionsEnvironment, Waste Output
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

S ShahSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
H MorrisEast Midlands North Training Rotation, UK.
S ThiagarajahDoncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
A GordonSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
S SharmaBarnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
P HaslamDoncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
J GarciaChesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
F AliSheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe National Health Service contributes 4%-5% of England and Wales' greenhouse gases and a quarter of all public sector waste. Between 20% and 33% of healthcare waste originates from a hospital's operating room, and up to 90% of waste is sent for costly and unneeded hazardous waste processing. The goal of this study was to quantify the amount and type of waste produced during a selection of common trauma and elective orthopaedic operations, and to calculate the carbon footprint of processing the waste.

methodsWaste generated for both elective and trauma procedures was separated primarily into clean and contaminated, paper or plastic, and then weighed. The annual carbon footprint for each operation at each site was subsequently calculated.

resultsElective procedures can generate up to 16.5kg of plastic waste per procedure. Practices such as double-draping the patient contribute to increasing the quantity of waste. Over the procedures analysed, the mean total plastic waste at the hospital sites varied from 6 to 12kg. One hospital site undertook a pilot of switching disposable gowns for reusable ones with a subsequent reduction of 66% in the carbon footprint and a cost saving of £13,483.89.

conclusionsThis study sheds new light on the environmental impact of waste produced during trauma and elective orthopaedic procedures. Mitigating the environmental impact of the operating room requires a collective drive for a culture change to sustainability and social responsibility. Each clinician can have an impact upon the carbon footprint of their operating theatre.

Indexed as

Carbon FootprintOperating RoomsElective Surgical ProceduresEnglandHumansMedical WasteMedical Waste DisposalOrthopedic ProceduresPlasticsState MedicineWalesMedical WasteMedical Waste DisposalPlasticsCarbon footprintNet ZeroOrthopaedicsSustainability

Identifiers

PMID38563077
PMCPMC11214852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.