volume 36 issue 6 pages 4067-4078

Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Chantelle Rizan 1, 2, 3, 4
Mahmood F. Bhutta 1, 2, 5
1
 
University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, UK
2
 
Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK
3
 
Centre for Sustainable Healthcare, Oxford, UK
5
 
BMA Medical Fair and Ethical Trade Group, British Medical Association, London, UK
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2021-09-24
scimago Q1
wos Q1
SJR1.023
CiteScore5.7
Impact factor2.7
ISSN09302794, 14322218
Surgery
Abstract
Hybrid surgical instruments contain both single-use and reusable components, potentially bringing together advantages from both approaches. The environmental and financial costs of such instruments have not previously been evaluated. We used Life Cycle Assessment to evaluate the environmental impact of hybrid laparoscopic clip appliers, scissors, and ports used for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, comparing these with single-use equivalents. We modelled this using SimaPro and ReCiPe midpoint and endpoint methods to determine 18 midpoint environmental impacts including the carbon footprint, and three aggregated endpoint impacts. We also conducted life cycle cost analysis of products, taking into account unit cost, decontamination, and disposal costs. The environmental impact of using hybrid instruments for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy was lower than single-use equivalents across 17 midpoint environmental impacts, with mean average reductions of 60%. The carbon footprint of using hybrid versions of all three instruments was around one-quarter of single-use equivalents (1756 g vs 7194 g CO2e per operation) and saved an estimated 1.13 e−5 DALYs (disability adjusted life years, 74% reduction), 2.37 e−8 species.year (loss of local species per year, 76% reduction), and US $ 0.6 in impact on resource depletion (78% reduction). Scenario modelling indicated that environmental performance of hybrid instruments was better even if there was low number of reuses of instruments, decontamination with separate packaging of certain instruments, decontamination using fossil-fuel-rich energy sources, or changing carbon intensity of instrument transportation. Total financial cost of using a combination of hybrid laparoscopic instruments was less than half that of single-use equivalents (GBP £131 vs £282). Adoption of hybrid laparoscopic instruments could play an important role in meeting carbon reduction targets for surgery and also save money.
Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

1
2
3
Bulletin of The Royal College of Surgeons of England
3 publications, 3.3%
Journal of visceral surgery
3 publications, 3.3%
Journal de Chirurgie Viscérale
3 publications, 3.3%
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
2 publications, 2.2%
Value in Health
2 publications, 2.2%
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England
2 publications, 2.2%
British Journal of Surgery
2 publications, 2.2%
Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
2 publications, 2.2%
International Journal of Surgery
2 publications, 2.2%
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
2 publications, 2.2%
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
2 publications, 2.2%
Annals of Surgical Oncology
2 publications, 2.2%
Economies
1 publication, 1.1%
British Dental Journal
1 publication, 1.1%
Environment, Development and Sustainability
1 publication, 1.1%
Nature Reviews Gastroenterology and Hepatology
1 publication, 1.1%
The Lancet Planetary Health
1 publication, 1.1%
Journal of Hospital Infection
1 publication, 1.1%
Academic Radiology
1 publication, 1.1%
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases
1 publication, 1.1%
Archives of Disease in Childhood: Education and Practice Edition
1 publication, 1.1%
BDJ Clinician’s Guides
1 publication, 1.1%
Laryngoscope
1 publication, 1.1%
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
1 publication, 1.1%
European Journal of Public Health
1 publication, 1.1%
Frontiers in Robotics and AI
1 publication, 1.1%
Frontiers in Surgery
1 publication, 1.1%
BMJ
1 publication, 1.1%
Intensive Care Medicine
1 publication, 1.1%
1
2
3

Publishers

5
10
15
20
25
Elsevier
24 publications, 26.37%
Springer Nature
19 publications, 20.88%
Wiley
8 publications, 8.79%
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
7 publications, 7.69%
MDPI
5 publications, 5.49%
The Royal College of Surgeons of England
5 publications, 5.49%
Oxford University Press
5 publications, 5.49%
SAGE
4 publications, 4.4%
BMJ
3 publications, 3.3%
Frontiers Media S.A.
3 publications, 3.3%
Baishideng Publishing Group
1 publication, 1.1%
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
1 publication, 1.1%
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
1 publication, 1.1%
Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
1 publication, 1.1%
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
1 publication, 1.1%
Cambridge University Press
1 publication, 1.1%
5
10
15
20
25
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
91
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Rizan C. et al. Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy // Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2021. Vol. 36. No. 6. pp. 4067-4078.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Rizan C., Bhutta M. F. Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy // Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2021. Vol. 36. No. 6. pp. 4067-4078.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1007/s00464-021-08728-z
UR - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08728-z
TI - Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy
T2 - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
AU - Rizan, Chantelle
AU - Bhutta, Mahmood F.
PY - 2021
DA - 2021/09/24
PB - Springer Nature
SP - 4067-4078
IS - 6
VL - 36
PMID - 34559257
SN - 0930-2794
SN - 1432-2218
ER -
BibTex |
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors) Copy
@article{2021_Rizan,
author = {Chantelle Rizan and Mahmood F. Bhutta},
title = {Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy},
journal = {Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques},
year = {2021},
volume = {36},
publisher = {Springer Nature},
month = {sep},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08728-z},
number = {6},
pages = {4067--4078},
doi = {10.1007/s00464-021-08728-z}
}
MLA
Cite this
MLA Copy
Rizan, Chantelle, et al. “Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.” Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, vol. 36, no. 6, Sep. 2021, pp. 4067-4078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08728-z.