Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2024 Jul 1;38(8):4127–4137. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-10962-0

Sustainability in surgical practice: a collaborative call toward environmental sustainability in operating rooms

Shaneeta M Johnson 1,2,✉, Stefania Marconi 3,4, Manuel Sanchez-Casalongue 5, Nader Francis 6, Bright Huo 7, Adnan Alseidi 8, Yewande R Alimi 9, Andrea Pietrabissa 10, Alberto Arezzo 11, Maximos Frountzas 12, Vittoria Bellato 13, Oleksii Potapov 14, Paul Barach 15,16, Miran Rems 17, Ricardo J Bello 18, Sheetal Nijhawan 19, Wendelyn M Oslock 20,21, Tejas S Sathe 8, Ryan P Hall 22, Benjamin Miller 23, Sarah Samreen 24, Jimmy Chung 25, Nana Marfo 26, Robert B Lim 27, Jonathan Vandeberg 28, Myrthe M Eussen 29,30, Nicole D Bouvy 29,30, Patricia Sylla 31
PMCID: PMC11289051  PMID: 38951239

Abstract

Background

The healthcare system plays a pivotal role in environmental sustainability, and the operating room (OR) significantly contributes to its overall carbon footprint. In response to this critical challenge, leading medical societies, government bodies, regulatory agencies, and industry stakeholders are taking measures to address healthcare sustainability and its impact on climate change. Healthcare now represents almost 20% of the US national economy and 8.5% of US carbon emissions. Internationally, healthcare represents 5% of global carbon emissions. US Healthcare is an outlier in both per capita cost, and per capita greenhouse gas emission, with almost twice per capita emissions compared to every other country in the world.

Methods

The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) established the Sustainability in Surgical Practice joint task force in 2023. This collaborative effort aims to actively promote education, mitigation, and innovation, steering surgical practices toward a more sustainable future.

Results

Several key initiatives have included a survey of members' knowledge and awareness, a scoping review of terminology, metrics, and initiatives, and deep engagement of key stakeholders.

Discussion

This position paper serves as a Call to Action, proposing a series of actions to catalyze and accelerate the surgical sustainability leadership needed to respond effectively to climate change, and to lead the societal transformation towards health that our times demand.

Keywords: Surgical sustainability, Environmental sustainability, Surgical practice, Carbon footprint, Greenhouse gas emissions, Green operating rooms, Climate change, Decarbonization, Minimally invasive surgery

The role and purpose of the sustainability in surgical practice (SSP) task force

Climate change is a global concern that poses an existential threat to human health [1]. Sustainability impacts the well-being of individuals, families, and communities worldwide. Unfortunately, the healthcare industry contributes significantly to the global carbon footprint and is responsible for almost 5% of greenhouse gas emissions [2]. In the United States alone, the sector accounts for 8.5% of national greenhouse gas emissions [3]. Urgent action is needed to mitigate these impacts. The operating room significantly contributes to healthcare facilities' sustainability impact via its significant waste generation and energy consumption.

Professional medical societies have an ethical and social responsibility to model and inspire needed changes in human activity that will lead to a healthier world. We must raise awareness of the climate crisis, educate our members on the social and environmental impacts of the healthcare sector, and disseminate, and hold our colleagues to account related to, best practices on how to reduce their carbon footprint in health organizations. In December 2019, the European Commission launched the European Green Deal, which should help make Europe the first climate-neutral continent in the world. In 2021, the European Union climate legislation was adopted, binding the European Union to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 and setting a target of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 as compared to 1990 levels [4]. Similarly, in 2022, in light of the fact that the health sector accounts for 8.5% of US GHG emissions, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the White House-HHS Health Sector Climate Pledge to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050 [5]. The document was signed by hundreds of organizations, including hospitals, suppliers, insurance companies, group purchasing organizations, pharmaceutical and device companies, as well as professional medical and surgical societies, including SAGES (Health Sector Pledge | HHS.gov) [5]. The US National Academy of Medicine partnered with the federal government and leading healthcare sector entities to propose a Grand Challenge on Decarbonizing the US Health System [6].

In response to this, and in an acknowledgment of the vital role that both EAES and SAGES societies can contribute to all aspects of sustainability and surgical quality, the Sustainability in Surgical Practice (SSP) Taskforce has been created [7]. The main goals of this alliance are to educate surgeons and their teams and collaborate with strategic partners on the shared goal of implementing and sustaining strategies to reduce the environmental footprint of surgical practice, particularly in the field of minimally invasive surgery (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Goals of the SSP Task Force

Enhancing sustainability in surgical practices—SSP key strategies and initiatives

Recognizing the health and other implications of sustainability and the crucial role of surgeons, surgical teams, and surgical practices in promoting sustainability, the SSP task force began the implementation of initiatives focusing on sustainability core competencies including:

  • Knowledge: Developing educational programs, identifying the scope of knowledge gaps, Understanding the scope of the global surgical knowledge base, understanding current initiatives in surgical sustainability

  • Skills-building: Building the skills repertoire needed to effect behavioral and attitude change, collaborating with key stakeholders to develop an understanding of the initiatives, barriers, and challenges to adopting a greener OR.

  • Leadership: Implementing SAGES/EAES focus on the importance of surgical sustainability leadership for society resilience and impact in surgical practices [8].

These key SSP initiatives have included:

SAGES and EAES membership survey

The SSP Taskforce surveyed the SAGES and EAES membership to assess sustainability knowledge and awareness. The survey covered several aspects, including attitudes, current knowledge, concerns, perceived barriers, and willingness to implement climate sustainability changes. The survey received 1024 complete responses from a global cohort of surgeons. It is the largest and first international assessment of surgeons' attitudes and understanding of carbon emissions generated from surgical activity and strategies to improve sustainability. The results demonstrated that many surgeons lack awareness about carbon footprint and sustainability. Although most surgeons (63% of respondents) viewed sustainability as a critical problem and were motivated to change their practices to improve it, less than half (43% of respondents) believed that climate change was a critical problem for the health of their patients. Additionally, only a minority of surgeons could estimate the carbon footprint of a surgical procedure (7.7% of respondents) or surgical supplies (6.5% of respondents), indicating a knowledge gap. The survey also highlights the need for targeted educational initiatives to address these knowledge gaps. Most respondents preferred less time-consuming educational modalities such as online webinars, online modules, and lectures. The most popular topics for education were waste management, supply chains, and reference cards.

Comprehensive scoping review

We conducted a comprehensive scoping review was undertaken to better understand the terminology and outcome measures used in the field of surgical sustainability, delineate the various domains in gastrointestinal surgical practice that can impact the environment and review the initiatives with positive impacts on the environment. The key findings include:

  • I.

    Surgical waste is a major contributor to the carbon footprint. Waste reduction strategies focused on refusing, reducing, and recycling to limit waste production in operating rooms. These strategies include using reusable equipment, leaner equipment trays, and avoiding unnecessary use of equipment on surgical trays [9–13]. Studies have shown that a significant proportion of the surgical waste generated during routine surgeries, such as inguinal hernias, can be avoided, resulting in cost savings and reduced greenhouse gas emissions [14]. Additionally, research suggests that around 75% of equipment-related consumables can be reduced in common procedures like an appendectomy, which can result in significant cost savings and reduced environmental impact [15, 16]. A life cycle assessment (LCA) demonstrated that reusable equipment has a lower environmental impact than disposable options. This includes climate change potential, ecosystem quality, health impacts, and resource depletion [17]. The combined approach of educating staff to reduce waste and improve waste sorting and recycling had among the largest reported impact on reducing surgical footprint and in improving the climate [18, 19].

  • II.

    Anesthetic gases, especially desflurane, have a significant impact on carbon footprint during gastrointestinal surgery. Substituting alternative gases, local anesthetics, or intravenous anesthesia can lead to substantial environmental, financial, and social benefits and contribute to mitigating climate change and promoting sustainable practices in surgical procedures [20]. The use of anesthetic machines that limit the flow of gas can yield among one of the largest reported reductions in climate impact via reductions in surgical waste and carbon footprint [21].

  • III.

    The type of surgical approach impacts the environmental footprint. Minimally invasive procedures that use non-energized dissection techniques can reduce CO2 emissions [22]. However, the LCA analyses of robotic approaches reveal a higher energy usage than that of open surgical techniques. Robotic approaches in hernia repair have been associated with increased solid waste production, contributing to adverse downstream environmental impacts [23].

  • IV.

    Surgical complications may be associated with an increased carbon footprint. Anastomotic leaks, a common complication, leading to much morbidity and increased costs, can result in a substantially increased climate footprint per patient, including increased carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) emissions, water consumption, and waste generation [24].

  • V.

    Simple and low-cost initiatives can reduce energy and water consumption in the OR. These include heat-recovery systems and judicious use of water while scrubbing or the use of alcohol-based scrubs or scrub-less alternatives [25].

  • VI.

    Educational and sustainability initiatives are essential to mitigate the environmental footprint of surgical practice. These initiatives include quantifying the utilization and costs associated with the use of reusable versus disposable surgical equipment, providing monthly feedback in the form of a “sustainability report card” on utilization and costs of disposable and reusable surgical supplies on the cost savings and waste reduction in the OR, implementing waste-reduction strategies, educating staff on proper waste sorting, and developing educational change management programs focused on surgical sustainability competencies and fellowships [26–28]. Education surrounding the mitigation of anesthetic gas use, particularly desflurane, was found to be significantly impactful in reducing the climate impact of surgical care and required close collaboration with anesthesia and surgical services leadership [21, 29, 30]

  • VII.

    Life cycle assessments are considered the gold standard in sustainability measures however they are resource-intensive and may be impractical in certain settings. The 10R model of circular economy is an effective method to address sustainability measures.

Industry and key stakeholder engagement

A series of targeted meetings were conducted with key industry stakeholders to assess their knowledge, interests, initiatives, and barriers related to sustainability in surgical practices. These meetings highlighted that several device manufacturers are actively involved in sustainability initiatives. Targeted interventions include packaging redesign, recycling, reuse, and measuring the carbon footprint of their manufacturing processes. However, industry leads identified obstacles to implementing initiatives including restrictions regarding the regulatory process around product redesign both in the US and in Europe. The insights gained from these meetings provided a basis for understanding the challenges and breakthroughs that impact sustainability in the industry and ultimately on how best to move forward with improving sustainability in surgical practice. Additional stakeholders have been identified as essential in the process of implementing sustainable practices in the surgical environment, including a broader array of drug and device manufacturers, educators, professional societies such as Surgery, Anesthesia, and Nursing societies, regulatory agencies, supply chain industry, and hospital administrators (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

SSP ongoing and planned collaboration with key stakeholders

The importance of green operating rooms

Rapid technological advancements and constant scientific improvements have been the norm for many decades. However, the concept of sustainability has gained importance only recently but has become equally significant. Healthcare, including surgery, is not exempt from the need for sustainability and surgical climate leadership. The development of Green Operating Rooms represents a significant shift toward responsible, ethical, and effective medical practices. Green ORs are crucial for promoting sustainable healthcare (Fig. 3). ORs generate significant greenhouse gas emissions and waste, making them a priority for implementing green practices. Adopting energy-efficient technologies and waste-reduction strategies can significantly lower utility bills, reduce costs, reduce carbon emissions, promote social equity, and align with the broader healthcare mission of promoting health and well-being [31, 32]. Sustainable OR practices can also lead to public health and safety benefits by reducing harmful pollutants and improving indoor air quality which disproportionately impacts lower income and minority communities. Embracing sustainability and Green OR practices align with consumer preferences and future-proofs businesses in a rapidly changing world.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Benefits of a Green Operating Room

The role of societies and surgeons in optimizing and achieving sustainable surgical practices

Surgical societies such as EAES and SAGES, which together represent over 10,000 members with primary minimally invasive and endoscopic surgical practice, play a significant role in advancing sustainable surgical practices. First, they have a significant duty to educate surgeons and surgical teams on the environmental impact of surgical practice. This is particularly relevant to the elective setting and as it relates to the increased adoption of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) technologies, including laparoscopy and robotic surgery, alongside an unprecedented reliance on single-use equipment. Knowledge about the various elements of “carbon hotspots” in the OR can empower surgical teams to modify behavior and make incremental changes to reduce the carbon footprint without adverse consequences on patient care. This entails updating the members with the relative contribution of electricity, anesthetic agents, procedural approach (open vs. laparoscopy vs. robotic), reusable vs. disposable supplies and instruments (including procurement), and surgical waste to the overall procedural footprint. Societies may develop educational materials, guidelines, or recommendations or partner with other societies and stakeholders to disseminate best practices. Surgical societies that actively engage in research and innovation may promote, fund, and disseminate research that generates evidence to support formal recommendations and inform practice change. Lastly, surgical societies must collaborate and join global advocacy efforts alongside other stakeholders to endorse policies that bolster climate actions and increase climate resilience across the health sector.

The intersection of upholding our educational commitments towards our members while minimizing our environmental impact has created unprecedented challenges – and opportunities – for both societies. Embracing these trends can help us stay ahead of the curve and focus on promoting sustainability in all our functions.

A recent survey of members of the colorectal surgery community highlights the strong willingness to change current surgical practice to improve sustainability in surgery and to participate in educational webinars on sustainable actions and practices [33]. Surgeons can form or join multidisciplinary “green OR” teams at their institutions and participate in and lead changes in the operating room. Specific interventions in the operating room with measurable impacts in reducing carbon hotspots include reducing surgical waste, minimizing the use of disposable equipment, preferential use of reusable instruments, and segregating waste more effectively to promote recycling and waste disposal. Other interventions include reducing the use of inhalation anesthetic agents and promoting OR efficiency and perioperative workflow that minimize energy expenditure. The 10R model of circular economy, endorsed by the joint SSP SAGES and EAES taskforce, is an effective approach to address surgical sustainability (Fig. 4.). It aims to minimize waste, reduce costs, and enhance environmental performance while maintaining high-quality patient care. Lastly, surgeons may opt for more sustainable lifestyles and modes of transportation and virtual alternatives to in-person travel to meetings and conferences, which have been shown to generate substantial waste and carbon emissions from air and ground transportation every year [34]. The actions of surgeons, surgical practices, health system leadership, and industry via initiatives aimed at improving surgical sustainability can have a lasting impact on the carbon footprint of the healthcare system (Figs. 5, 6).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

10 R model of circular economy

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Recommendations for Initiatives to decrease carbon footprint in surgical practices

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Open in a new tab

Strategies to reduce carbon footprint

Leading sustainability in surgical practice: a call to action

The operating room is essential for patient care but exacts a significant toll on the environment. From energy consumption to waste generation, every surgical intervention contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and resource depletion. Recognizing this, healthcare institutions must prioritize environmental sustainability as a fundamental responsibility. Surgeons, health care providers, anesthesiologists, health system administrators, societies, and regulatory agencies must work collaboratively to facilitate the dissemination of impactful, evidence-based initiatives. Surgical societies must play a central role as a repository for resources, education, and dissemination of evidence-based best practices. Whether in resource-rich or resource-constrained settings, the principles of environmental responsibility apply universally. Collaborating across borders, sharing best practices, and learning from diverse contexts will accelerate progress. The operating room represents both a challenge and an opportunity. As stewards of health and the environment, we must embrace a paradigm shift to ensure the sustainability of our practices and the planet (Table 1).

Table 1.

Glossary of core terminology for sustainability in gastrointestinal surgical practice

Terms Definitions
Principles
Circular economy A model of economy that involves activities that are restorative or regenerative by design and aims for the elimination of waste through the superior design of materials, products, and systems. [40]
Climate change Shifts in weather and climate patterns that occur over long periods of time, acknowledging that the current warming temperature is caused primarily by human activity
Decarbonize The act of reducing the amount of GHG emissions associated with a process or product, with the goal of being net neutral
Green A colloquial term to refer to initiatives, products or practices that have environmental benefits such as reduced use of environmental resources
Greenhouse gases Gases (primarily CO2 but including CH4, N2O, and others) that absorb, trap, and re-emit heat and radiant energy back into the earth's atmosphere1
Planetary health An emerging concept that prioritizes solutions that simultaneously benefit human health and advance environmental sustainability. [40]
Sustainability Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own (UN Brundtland Commission) [42]
Study designs
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Life cycle assessments are a rigorous methodology for studying the environmental impact of a product or process. LCAs consider both the upstream and disposal of products to capture all inputs and outputs. Outcomes measured LCAs include a comprehensive range of metrics. While time intensive, these are the gold standard for sustainability studies
Outcome measures
Carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) A measure of the carbon dioxide required to generate a corresponding amount of climate impact, which allows for comparison
Ecosystem quality (PDF*m2*yr or species.yr) Potentially disappeared fraction of species in the same area, annually: a measure of the impact of climate change on the loss of biodiversity and/or species in the environment
Energy (kWh) A measure of the amount of energy used to deliver surgical care. Since most energy currently comes from the combustion of fossil fuels, studies that show reduced energy use function as a proxy of reduced emissions
Human health (DALY/person/yr) A measure of the impact of climate change on human health in disabilityadjusted-life-years
Particulate matter (μg/m3) Particulate matter, especially that < 2.5 μm in diameter, has multi-system health risks,
Waste (kg) A measure of the amount of waste generated to deliver surgical care
Water (m3) A measure of the amount of water used to deliver surgical care
Open in a new tab

Funding

This initiative received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Disclosures

Patricia Sylla is a consultant for Ethicon, Safeheal, Tissium, and Stryker. Nader Francis has consulted for Medtronic, Olympus, Applied Medical, Pharmacosmos and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare. Robert Lim is a consultant for Up-to-date. Shaneeta Johnson is a consultant for Baxter and Intuitive Surgical. Yewande Alimi is a consultant for Medtronic. Sheetal Nijhawan is a consultant for Smart SurgN. Benjamin Miller has research funding from the American Hernia Society. Stefania Marconi, Manuel Sanchez-Casalongue, Bright Huo, Adnan Alseidi, Andrea Pietrabissa, Alberto Arezzo, Maximos Frountzas, Vittoria Bellato, Oleksii Potapov, Paul Barach, Miran Rems, Ricardo J Bello, Wendelyn M. Oslock, Tejas S. Sathe, Ryan P. Hall, Sarah Samreen, Jimmy Chung, Nana Marfo, Jonathan Vandeberg, Myrthe Eussen, Nicole Bouvy have no have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Patient consent

Not applicable.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Costello A, Abbas M, Allen A et al (2009) Managing the health effects of climate change. Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission. Lancet 373(9676):1693–1733. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60935-1 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60935-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pichler P, Jaccard IS, Weisz U, Weisz H (2019) International comparison of health care carbon footprints. Environ Res Lett 14:135340667 10.1088/1748-9326/ab19e1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Eckelman MJ, Sherman J (2016) Environmental impacts of the U.S. health care system and effects on public health. PLoS ONE. 10.1371/journal.pone.0157014 10.1371/journal.pone.0157014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.European Commission (2019) The European Green Deal. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en. Accessed 17 Mar 2024
  • 5.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2024) Health sector commitments to emissions reduction and resilience. https://www.hhs.gov/climate-change-health-equity-environmental-justice/climate-change-health-equity/actions/health-sector-pledge/index.html. Accessed 17 Mar 2024
  • 6.Dzau VJ, Levine R, Barrett G, Witty A (2021) Decarbonizing the U.S. Health Sector - a call to action. N Engl J Med 385(23):2117–2119. 10.1056/NEJMp2115675 10.1056/NEJMp2115675 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pietrabissa A, Sylla P (2023) Green surgery: time to make a choice. Surg Endosc 37(9):6609–6610. 10.1007/s00464-023-10229-0 10.1007/s00464-023-10229-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Baker DP, Salas E, King H, Battles J, Barach P (2005) The role of teamwork in the professional education of physicians: current status and assessment recommendations. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 31(4):185–202. 10.1016/s1553-7250(05)31025-7 10.1016/s1553-7250(05)31025-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Billings J, Ovsepyan G, Wend J, Zaghiyan K, Tang J, Fleshner P (2017) Surgical instrument waste in elective colorectal surgery: a prospective, interventional study. Gastroenterology 152(5):S1213. 10.1016/S0016-5085(17)34037-4 10.1016/S0016-5085(17)34037-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Boag K, Ho T, Quyn A, Peckham-Cooper A (2022) A sustainable appendicectomy. BJS 109(5):75 [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gough V, Strunzova A, Curry H (2022) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy-can we make it both Greener and cheaper? BJS 109(9):19–20 [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Adler S, Scherrer M, Rückauer KD, Daschner FD (2005) Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 19(2):268–272 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Graham CW, Komidar L, Perger L (2019) Comparison of polymeric clips and endoscopic staplers for laparoscopic appendectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 29(2):240–242. 10.1089/lap.2018.0173 10.1089/lap.2018.0173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sullivan GA, Reiter AJ, Hu A et al (2023) Operating room recycling: opportunities to reduce carbon emissions without increases in cost. J Pediatr Surg 58(11):2187–2191. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2023.04.011 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2023.04.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ford B, Labib P, Kanwar A, Sanders G, Douie W, Winfield M (2022) Reducing single-use surgical instruments during laparoscopic appendicectomy: using sustainable quality improvement as a catalyst to encourage wider behavioural change in a surgical department. BJS 109(6):1 [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Labib P, Ford B, Winfield M, Douie W, Kanwar A, Sanders G (2023) Revising a laparoscopic appendicectomy set to reduce reliance on disposable surgical instruments: supporting the transition to sustainable surgical practice. Ann R College Surg Engl. 10.1308/rcsann.2023.0015 10.1308/rcsann.2023.0015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Boberg L, Singh J, Montgomery A, Bentzer P (2022) Environmental impact of single-use, reusable, and mixed trocar systems used for laparoscopic cholecystectomies. PLoS ONE 17:7. 10.1371/journal.pone.0271601 10.1371/journal.pone.0271601 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Rouvière N, Chkair S, Auger F, Alovisetti C, Bernard MJ, Cuvillon P, Kinowski JM, Leguelinel-Blache G, Chasseigne V (2022) Ecoresponsible actions in operating rooms: a health ecological and economic evaluation. Int J Surg (Lond, Engl) 101:106637. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106637 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106637 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wormer BA, Augenstein VA, Carpenter CL et al (2013) The green operating room: simple changes to reduce cost and our carbon footprint. Am Surg 79(7):666–671. 10.1177/000313481307900708 10.1177/000313481307900708 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Caycedo-Marulanda A, Caswell J, Mathur S (2020) Comparing the environmental impact of anesthetic gases during transanal total mesorectal excision surgery at a tertiary healthcare centre. Can J Anesth 67(5):607–608. 10.1007/s12630-019-01527-0 10.1007/s12630-019-01527-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Boyle A, Coleman A, Barker K, Baraclough D (2018) A grassroots approach to the greenhouse effect: implementing recent guidance from the AAGBI and RCoA. Anaesthesia 73(4):12–116. 10.1111/anae.14448 10.1111/anae.14448 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Agarwal BB, Tapish S, Mahajan KC (2010) Carbon footprint of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with or without energized dissection-a case controlled study. SAGES. https://www.sages.org/meetings/annual-meeting/abstracts-archive/carbon-footprint-of-laparoscopic-cholecystectomy-performed-with-or-without-energized-dissection
  • 23.Blankush JM, Gardiner A, Tiwari V et al (2021) Comparative environmental effects and disability-adjusted life-year impacts of robotic and open ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 35:1–103. 10.1007/s00464-021-08747-w33170335 10.1007/s00464-021-08747-w [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bischofberger S, Adshead F, Moore K et al (2023) Assessing the environmental impact of an anastomotic leak care pathway. Surg Open Sci 14:81–86. 10.1016/j.sopen.2023.07.001 10.1016/j.sopen.2023.07.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Petterwood J, Shridhar V (2009) Water conservation in surgery: a comparison of two surgical scrub techniques demonstrating the amount of water saved using a “taps on/taps off” technique. Aust J Rural Health 17(4):214–217. 10.1111/j.1440-1584.2009.01074.x 10.1111/j.1440-1584.2009.01074.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Park KY, Russell JI, Wilke NP, Marka NA, Nichol PF (2021) Reducing cost and waste in pediatric laparoscopic procedures. J Pediatr Surg 56(1):66–70. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2020.09.052 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2020.09.052 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Vacharathit V, Walsh RM, Utech J, Asfaw SH (2022) Action in healthcare sustainability is a surgical imperative: this is a novel way to do it. J Surg Educ 79(2):275–278. 10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.09.002 10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wyssusek K, Lo K, Eames G, Whately Y (2022) Greenhouse gas reduction in anaesthesia practice: a departmental environmental strategy. BMJ Open Qual. 11:3 10.1136/bmjoq-2022-001867 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Alexander R, Poznikoff A, Malherbe S (2018) Greenhouse gases: the choice of volatile anesthetic does matter. Can J Anesth 65(2):221–222. 10.1007/s12630-017-1006-x 10.1007/s12630-017-1006-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Benness M, Doanne M (2021) Anaesthetists are primed to leap into action on climate change. Anaesth Intensive Care 49(25):1–16. 10.1177/0310057X211055028 10.1177/0310057X211055028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.McGain F, Naylor C (2014) Environmental sustainability in hospitals - a systematic review and research agenda. J Health Serv Res Policy 19(4):245–252. 10.1177/1355819614534836 10.1177/1355819614534836 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R et al (2015) Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 49(3):1779–1786. 10.1021/es504719g 10.1021/es504719g [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.ESCP ECOS-Surgery Study Committee (2022) The European Society of coloproctology collecting opinions on sustainable surgery study. Dis Colon Rectum 65(11):1297–1300. 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002541 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002541 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Trang K, Fung B, Lamb T, Moloo H, Wick EC (2024) Reducing carbon footprint in travel to the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons annual meeting: striking a balance between environmental impact and collaborative opportunities. Dis Colon Rectum 67(2):197–199. 10.1097/DCR.0000000000003037 10.1097/DCR.0000000000003037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wiedmann T, Minx J (2007) A definition of 'carbon footprint'. In: Pertsova C (ed) Ecological economics research trends. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 5
  • 36.World Health Organization (2009) WHO guidelines for safe surgery 2009: safe surgery saves lives. Section I, Introduction. World Health Organization, Geneva. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143229/# [PubMed]
  • 37.World Resources Institute (n.d.) Greenhouse gas protocol. https://www.wri.org/initiatives/greenhouse-gas-protocol
  • 38.United States Environmental Protection Agency (2024) Scope 1 and scope 2 inventory guidance. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-1-and-scope-2-inventory-guidance
  • 39.Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht R, Hunkeler D, Norris G, Rydberg T, Schmidt W, Suh S, Weidema B, Pennington D (2004) Life cycle assessment: Part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int 30(5):701–720. 10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005 10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Whitmee S, Haines A, Beyrer C, Boltz F, Capon AG, de Souza Dias BF, Ezeh A, Frumkin H, Gong P, Head P, Horton R, Mace GM, Marten R, Myers SS, Nishtar S, Osofsky SA, Pattanayak SK, Pongsiri MJ, Romanelli C, Soucat A, ach, D. (2015) Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet 386(10007):1973–2028. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60901-1 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60901-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Molero A, Calabrò M, Vignes M, Gouget B, Gruson D (2021) Sustainability in healthcare: perspectives and reflections regarding laboratory medicine. Ann Lab Med 41(2):139–144. 10.3343/alm.2021.41.2.139 10.3343/alm.2021.41.2.139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.United Nations (n.d.) Academic impact. https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/sustainability

Articles from Surgical Endoscopy are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES