Carbon footprint of robotically‐assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: a comparison

TLDR

No comprehensive comparative assessment of the environmental impact of surgical modalities has been performed. The study aims to quantify and compare the carbon footprints of laparotomy, conventional laparoscopy, and robotically‑assisted laparoscopy. We reviewed 150 staging procedures across LAP, LSC, and RA‑LSC, measuring solid waste and energy use, converting them to CO₂e to calculate each surgery’s carbon footprint. RA‑LSC had a 40.3 kg CO₂e per patient, 38 % higher than LSC (29.2 kg CO₂e) and 77 % higher than LAP (22.7 kg CO₂e). © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Abstract

Abstract Background To date there have been no comprehensive, comparative assessments of the environmental impact of surgical modalities. Our study seeks to quantify and compare the total greenhouse gas emissions, or 'carbon footprint', attributable to three surgical modalities. Methods A review of 150 staging procedures, employing laparotomy (LAP), conventional laparoscopy (LSC) or robotically‐assisted laparoscopy (RA‐LSC), was performed. The solid waste generated (kg) and energy consumed (kWh) during each case were quantified and converted into their equivalent mass of carbon dioxide (kg CO 2 e) release into the environment. The carbon footprint is the sum of the waste production and energy consumption during each surgery (kg CO 2 e). Results The total carbon footprint of a RA‐LSC procedure is 40.3 kg CO 2 e/patient ( p < 0.01). This represents a 38% increase over that of LSC (29.2 kg CO 2 e/patient; p < 0.01) and a 77% increase over LAP (22.7 kg CO 2 e/patient; p < 0.01). Conclusions Our results provide clinicians, administrators and policy‐makers with knowledge of the environmental impact of their decisions to facilitate adoption of sustainable practices. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.