ArticleBJS open2024
Carbon footprint of non-melanoma skin cancer surgery.
Article in BJS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Efficiency and Sustainability in the Skin Cancer Excision Pathway: Life Cycle Assessment and Process Map.JMIR dermatology · 2026Article
- Contribution of hospitals and clinical services to global warming: a scoping systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClimate change poses a significant global health threat and healthcare, including surgery, contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Efforts have been made to promote sustainability in surgery, but the literature on sustainability in plastic surgery remains limited.
methodsA life-cycle analysis was used to assess and quantify the environmental emissions associated with three distinct reconstructive methods utilized in non-melanoma skin cancer surgery: direct closure, split-thickness skin graft, and full-thickness skin graft. Analyses were conducted in March 2023 in Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK. The carbon footprints for non-melanoma skin cancer surgery in England and Wales were then estimated.
resultsThe mean carbon emissions for non-melanoma skin cancer surgery ranged from 29.82 to 34.31 kgCO₂eq. Theatre energy consumption (4.29-8.76 kgCO₂eq) and consumables (16.87 kgCO₂eq) were significant contributors. Waste produced during non-melanoma skin cancer surgery accounted for 1.31 kgCO₂eq and sterilization of reusable surgical instruments resulted in 1.92 kgCO₂eq of carbon emissions. Meanwhile, transportation, dressings, pharmaceuticals, and laundry accounted for 0.57, 2.65, 1.85, and 0.38 kgCO₂eq respectively. The excision of non-melanoma skin cancer with direct closure (19.29-22.41 kgCO₂eq) resulted in the lowest carbon emissions compared with excision with split-thickness skin graft (43.80-49.06 kgCO₂eq) and full-thickness skin graft (31.58-37.02 kgCO₂eq). In 2021, it was estimated that non-melanoma skin cancer surgery had an annual carbon footprint of 306 775 kgCO₂eq in Wales and 4 402 650 kgCO₂eq in England. It was possible to predict that, by 2035, carbon emissions from non-melanoma skin cancer surgery will account for 388 927 kgCO₂eq in Wales and 5 419 770 kgCO₂eq in England.
conclusionThis study highlights the environmental impact of non-melanoma skin cancer in plastic surgery departments and emphasizes the need for sustainable practices. Collaboration between surgeons and policymakers is essential and further data collection is recommended for better analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.