TPT 7.05 The Carbon footprint of Common Laparoscopic procedures: Streamlining Instruments and Cutting Emissions

Clicks: 1
ID: 323896
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #85 of 432 articles by views in the british journal of surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 432 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Introduction As healthcare systems commit to net-zero targets, the environmental impact of sterilising reusable surgical instruments is gaining significant attention. Currently, decontaminating and packaging instruments within multi-item sets generates approximately 66–77 g CO₂e per instrument, compared with 189 g CO₂e for individually wrapped items. Aim The aim of this study is to estimate the carbon footprint and average cost of sterilising reusable surgical equipment in Laparoscopic surgeries and optimising surgical trays to reduce both carbon emission and financial expenditure. Methodology Instrument usage patterns were observed across 11 laparoscopic cases at DVH, focusing on General Set and Laparoscopic Set. A heat-map analysis was performed to determine frequency of use for each instrument. High-use items were identified as potential components of a streamlined “Core Set,” while infrequently used items were considered for case-specific or reserve modules. The proposed reduced set will be validated over 4–6 weeks, with re-audit to assess safety, efficiency, reprocessing impact, and carbon savings. Results Preliminary analysis indicates that only a small subset of instruments are consistently required, while the majority of instruments remain mostly unused. Single-use and low-use instruments are expected to contribute disproportionately to both carbon footprint and reprocessing costs. Modelling suggests that rationalising tray contents could reduce tray weight, costs, and associated emissions by 70–80%. Conclusion Our change in policy and practice will be modelled to significantly reduce environmental impact and financial costs. The re-audit will evaluate these outcomes and guide potential expansion to other surgical units, advancing sustainable healthcare practices.
Reference Key
openalex_W7172497386 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Ramsha Khan, Qurrat Atif, Yawar Watali
Journal the british journal of surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/bjs/znag087.245
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znag087.245
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.