↓ Skip to main content

The carbon footprint of products used in five common surgical operations: identifying contributing products and processes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 2,841)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
161 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
22 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The carbon footprint of products used in five common surgical operations: identifying contributing products and processes
Published in
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, April 2023
DOI 10.1177/01410768231166135
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chantelle Rizan, Robert Lillywhite, Malcom Reed, Mahmood F Bhutta

Abstract

Mitigating carbon footprint of products used in resource-intensive areas such as surgical operating rooms will be important in achieving net zero carbon healthcare. The aim of this study was to evaluate the carbon footprint of products used within five common operations, and to identify the biggest contributors (hotspots). A predominantly process-based carbon footprint analysis was conducted for products used in the five highest volume surgical operations performed in the National Health System in England. The carbon footprint inventory was based on direct observation of 6-10 operations/type, conducted across three sites within one NHS Foundation Trust in England. Patients undergoing primary elective carpal tunnel decompression, inguinal hernia repair, knee arthroplasty, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, tonsillectomy (March 2019 - January 2020). We determined the carbon footprint of the products used in each of the five operations, alongside greatest contributors through analysis of individual products and of underpinning processes. The mean average carbon footprint of products used for carpal tunnel decompression was 12.0 kg CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents); 11.7 kg CO2e for inguinal hernia repair; 85.5 kg CO2e for knee arthroplasty; 20.3 kg CO2e for laparoscopic cholecystectomy; and 7.5 kg CO2e for tonsillectomy. Across the five operations, 23% of product types were responsible for ≥80% of the operation carbon footprint. Products with greatest carbon contribution for each operation type were the single-use hand drape (carpal tunnel decompression), single-use surgical gown (inguinal hernia repair), bone cement mix (knee arthroplasty), single-use clip applier (laparoscopic cholecystectomy) and single-use table drape (tonsillectomy). Mean average contribution from production of single-use items was 54%, decontamination of reusables 20%, waste disposal of single-use items 8%, production of packaging for single-use items 6% and linen laundering 6%. Change in practice and policy should be targeted towards those products making greatest contribution, and should include reducing single-use items and switching to reusables, alongside optimising processes for decontamination and waste disposal, modelled to reduce carbon footprint of these operations by 23%-42%.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Librarian 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 17 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Unspecified 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Philosophy 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 18 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1206. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2023.
All research outputs
#11,354
of 25,123,616 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
#11
of 2,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#360
of 407,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,123,616 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,841 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 407,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.