ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Reducing the carbon footprint and costs of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a modelling study on interventions for sustainable surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic Cholecystectomy: Outcomes, Safety, and Value in the Era of Advanced Technology.Journal of surgery and research · 2026Article
- From procurement to disposal: a framework for an activity-based cost analysis of reusable and disposable trocars in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReducing the carbon footprint of surgical care requires carbon and economic evaluations to guide and support effective sustainability initiatives. This study aims to quantify the carbon footprint (CO₂-eq.) and financial (euros) impact of targeted interventions in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).
methodsThis modelling study evaluated the carbon and financial impact of sustainability interventions in LC, structured within the 10R circularity framework. Key contributors to emissions (disposables, anaesthesia, and energy) were addressed through seven mitigation strategies switching to (1) reusable trocars; (2) a reusable clip applicator; (3) reusable drapes; (4) reusable gowns; (5) refusing a forced-air heating device; (6) switching to total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA); and (7) transitioning to 100% renewable electricity. The carbon impact was assessed via life cycle assessment (LCA) following ISO 14040, using the ReCiPe 2016 method to calculate cradle-to-grave CO₂-eq. Cost analysis compared acquisition and sterilization costs of disposable and reusable trocars and a clip applicator. Comparison between reusable and disposable products was done by Monte Carlo simulation.
resultsSwitching to reusables and avoiding the forced-air heating device reduced emissions by 9.5 kg CO₂-eq. per LC (- 21%). Switching to TIVA saved 2.9 kg CO₂-eq. (- 7%) and using renewable electricity saved 4.0 kg CO₂-eq. (- 9%). Combined, these interventions achieved a 36% emission reduction (16.5 kg CO₂-eq.) per LC. Reusable trocars and clip applicators were cost-saving in > 93% of simulations, with break-even reached after 9 and 20 uses.
conclusionTargeted mitigation strategies can substantially reduce the carbon footprint of laparoscopic procedures, and switching to reusable trocars and a clip applicator can reduce cost. These findings provide actionable insights for implementing sustainable practices in surgical care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41419698What 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.