ArticleJournal of infection prevention2026
A comparative life cycle assessment of the environmental impact of preoperative skin preparation, single-use applicators versus bulk antiseptic with reusable instruments.
Article in Journal of infection prevention, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Preoperative skin preparation (PSP) is a critical step of surgery to reduce bacteria on the skin that can cause infections. It is commonly believed that the reusable equipment method of PSP reduces environmental emissions relative to single-use options. However, no research comparing entire-life cycle environmental emissions associated with the two approaches exists. Methods: A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was conducted comparing PSP in a European hospital using a single-use applicator versus a reusable equipment method. Results: Findings highlight the superior environmental performance of a single-use antiseptic applicator method, resulting in 49% less CO Discussion: The study challenges the assumption that reusable systems always result in lower environmental impacts. This LCA revealed that efficient manufacturing processes, optimized use of antiseptic during procedure, and reduced energy consumption throughout the single-use method life cycle can decrease the carbon footprint. This highlights the need to scrutinize the life cycle when making comparisons as part of surgical sustainability.
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.