ArticleBone & joint open2026
WaSTE: a multicentre audit of waste segregation practices in elective knee and hip arthroplasty.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Arthroplasty generates the most waste among the sub-specialties of orthopaedic surgery. Infectious waste generates ten times more CO2 than recycled waste, and over 90% of it is misallocated. This multicentre study aimed to quantify waste from primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) across UK NHS trusts, guiding strategies for waste reduction and improved segregation. Methods: Data were collected prospectively from ten UK centres over six months between October 2023 and April 2024, covering at least ten arthroplasty cases per centre. Waste was categorized and weighed across six streams (infectious, offensive, recycling, general, sharps, and linen). Data on scrubbed personnel, drapes, implant brand, and intraoperative complications were also collected. Results: Data from 222 procedures (92 THAs, 130 TKAs) revealed significant differences in total waste production across centres (p < 0.001). THAs produced a mean of 14.8 kg waste, while TKAs generated 13.6 kg. Only 5/10 trusts utilized the offensive waste stream. Implant brand, number of scrubbed personnel, and reusable drapes were predictors of increased waste production on unadjusted univariate analysis; multivariable linear regression analysis showed local centre practice was the only significant predictor of waste production. Conclusion: Local waste management practices were the strongest predictors of waste production, underscoring need for standardization, education, and adherence to best practices. The use of offensive waste streams eliminated infectious waste, supporting a shift towards less carbon-intensive disposal. Adherence to established national guidelines is required to reduce the quantity of infectious waste and reduce the carbon footprint of arthroplasty surgery. Implementing offensive waste streams can reduce carbon intensity significantly. Addressing centre-specific policies, adhering to national guidance, and industry collaboration are essential for minimizing arthroplasty waste.
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.