Carbon Footprint of Open Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery Performed in the Procedure Room Versus Operating Room Setting.

PURPOSE: Environmental sustainability is an important issue in health care because of large amounts of greenhouse gases attributable to hospitals. The operating room has been highlighted as one of the highest contributors, prompting several initiatives by organizations focused on the care of hand and upper extremity conditions. This study aimed to quantify and compare the carbon footprint of a common hand surgery in two different surgical settings, the procedure room (PR) and operating room. We hypothesized that open carpal tunnel release (oCTR) will generate a greater environmental impact in the operating room than in the PR. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of oCTRs performed at a tertiary care medical center. Current procedural technology codes isolated a single cohort of patients who underwent bilateral oCTR, one side performed in the PR and the contralateral side in the operating room. Current published emission conversions were used to calculate carbon footprint at our institution based on energy expenditure necessary for the creation and disposal of waste and sterilization of surgical equipment. Surgery time was combined with heating, ventilation and air conditioning/lighting energy consumption to estimate facility emissions. RESULTS: Fourteen patients had bilateral oCTR surgery performed in both settings. Open CTR performed in the operating room generated 3.7 kg more solid waste than when performed in the PR. In total, emissions from oCTR performed in the operating room generated 32.4 kg CO2, whereas oCTR in the PR emitted 13.0 kg CO2 per surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Performing a common hand procedure (oCTR) is more environmentally sustainable in the PR than in the operating room, with a 60% reduction in carbon footprint. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Greater effort should be made to perform surgery in the PR instead of the operating room in appropriately indicated patients. Surgical sets should be evaluated for the necessity of included equipment and unnecessary waste.

Evaluating Factors Associated With Patient-Perceived Applicability of the QuickDASH Survey in Reflecting Their Goals of Care Prior to Hand Surgery.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures intend to capture patients' perspectives on their health status. However, the patient-perceived applicability of many of these patient-reported outcome measures is unknown. We hypothesized that patients experiencing greater upper extremity disability and greater pain interference would be more likely to report that the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) survey content is responsive to their daily lives and goals in seeking surgical care. METHODS: Adult preoperative hand surgery patients at a single tertiary academic center were recruited prospectively. QuickDASH, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference computerized-adaptive-testing, and the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ)-a validated adult physical activity level metric-data were collected. The following two Likert response questions were also asked: question (1) "How applicable is the above questionnaire to your treatment goals for your upper extremity condition?" and question (2) "How applicable is the overall questionnaire to your daily life?" Multivariable binary logistic regression was performed to define the factors associated with patients reporting that the survey was "very applicable." RESULTS: Of the 133 included patients, the mean age was 49 ± 18 years, 40% were women, and the mean GLTEQ score was 54.1 ± 5.5 (consistent with a high level of activity). For questions 1 and 2, 32% and 29% of the patients reported that QuickDASH was "very applicable," respectively. The multivariable model demonstrated that for every 10-point increase in QuickDASH, there was a 45% to 49% greater odds of respondents reporting that the survey was "very applicable," and for every 5-point increase in pain interference computerized-adaptive-testing, the odds increased by 55% to 70%. No association with GLTEQ was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with greater upper extremity disability and pain interference were more likely to find the QuickDASH content to be applicable to their daily lives and goals in seeking surgical care. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that QuickDASH may not be an optimal instrument when evaluating upper extremity function in cohorts with mild disability and low pain interference.