ArticleEye (London, England)2025
Comparative carbon footprinting study of reusable vs. disposable instruments in cataract surgery.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2025. 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
- [Glaucoma: ecological comparison of disposable and reusable measuring bodies for applanation tonometry according to Goldmann].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Authors' reply: Reuse of single-use Kahook Dual Blade: Safety and ethics.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTheatre activity is a major source of hospital waste, accounting for 21-30% of total output, and is 3-6 times more energy-intensive than any other hospital department. Cataract remains the leading cause of blindness worldwide, and cataract surgery is the most commonly performed surgical procedure worldwide, but to date has received little analysis in this field. The aim of this study was to evaluate the carbon impact of streamlining single-use packs, and transitioning from single-use items, to reusable equivalents in cataract surgery.
methodsA focus group and prospective audit was carried out to identify single-use pack items for streamlining. A bottom-up, process-based carbon footprint analysis was conducted of single-use items and reusable alternatives using activity data provided by the suppliers and greenhouse gas (GHG) conversion factors from the UK Government GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting database.
resultsTotal carbon savings from streamlining was 935 kgCO2e/year, and switching, was 309 kgCO2e/year. Single-use items had a 27 times greater carbon footprint than reusable equivalents (322 kgCO2 vs. 12 kgCO2e respectively). A net carbon saving was achieved from 19 or more re-uses of the reusable items compared to single-use equivalents.
conclusionsThis study provides evidence of carbon emissions savings both from streamlining disposable instruments in cataract surgical packs, and from switching from single-use to reusable instruments. Mitigation strategies targeting hotspots in resource intensive areas will be an important aspect of reducing the climate burden of surgery. Change in practice and policy is required in all surgical specialities to realize net zero carbon healthcare.
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.