Quantification of the environmental impact of radiotherapy and associated secondary human health effects: a multi-institutional retrospective analysis and simulation.

BACKGROUND: The health-care industry is a substantial contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, yet the specific environmental impact of radiotherapy, a cornerstone of cancer treatment, remains under-explored. We aimed to quantify the emissions associated with the delivery of radiotherapy in the USA and propose a framework for reducing the environmental impact of oncology care. METHODS: In this multi-institutional retrospective analysis and simulation study, we conducted a lifecycle assessment of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for ten anatomical disease sites, adhering to the International Organization for Standardization's standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. We analysed retrospective data from Jan 1, 2017, to Oct 1, 2023, encompassing patient and staff travel, medical supplies, and equipment and building energy use associated with the use of EBRT at four academic institutions in the USA. The primary objective was to measure the environmental impacts across ten categories: greenhouse gases (expressed as kg of carbon dioxide equivalents [CO2e]), ozone depletion, smog formation, acidification, eutrophication, carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic potential, respiratory effects, fossil fuel depletion, and ecotoxicity. Human health effects secondary to these environmental impacts were also estimated as disability-adjusted life years. We also assessed the potential benefits of hypofractionated regimens for breast and genitourinary (ie, prostate and bladder) cancers on US greenhouse gas emissions using an analytic model based on the 2014 US National Cancer Database for fractionation patterns and patient commute distances. FINDINGS: We estimated that the mean greenhouse gas emissions associated with a standard 25-fraction EBRT course were 4310 kg CO2e (SD 2910), which corresponded to 0·0035 disability-adjusted life years per treatment course. Transit and building energy usage accounted for 25·73% (1110 kg CO2e) and 73·95% of (3190 kg CO2e) of total greenhouse gas emissions, respectively, whereas supplies contributed only 0·32% (14 kg CO2e). Across the other environmental impact categories, most of the environmental impact also stemmed from patient transit and energy use within facilities, with little environmental impact contributed by supplies used. Hypofractionated treatment simulations suggested a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions-by up to 42% for breast and 77% for genitourinary cancer-and environmental impacts more broadly. INTERPRETATION: This comprehensive lifecycle assessment of EBRT delineates the environmental and secondary health impacts of radiotherapy, and underscores the urgent need for sustainable practices in oncology. The findings serve as a reference for future decarbonisation efforts in cancer care and show the potential environmental benefits of modifying treatment protocols (when clinical equipoise exists). They also highlight strategic opportunities to mitigate the ecological footprint in an era of escalating climate change and increasing cancer prevalence. FUNDING: Mount Zion Health Fund.

Sustainability in the IVF laboratory: recommendations of an expert panel.

The healthcare industry is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Assisted reproductive technology is part of the larger healthcare sector, with its own heavy carbon footprint. The social, economic and environmental costs of this collective carbon footprint are becoming clearer, as is the impact on human reproductive health. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and the International IVF Initiative collaborated to seek and formulate practical recommendations for sustainability in IVF laboratories. An international panel of experts, enthusiasts and professionals in reproductive medicine, environmental science, architecture, biorepository and law convened to discuss the topics of importance to sustainability. Recommendations were issued on how to build a culture of sustainability in the workplace, implement green design and building, use life cycle analysis to determine the environmental impact, manage cryostorage more sustainably, and understand and manage laboratory waste with prevention as a primary goal. The panel explored whether the industry supporting IVF is sustainable. An example is provided to illustrate the application of green principles to an IVF laboratory through a certification programme. The UK legislative landscape surrounding sustainability is also discussed and a few recommendations on 'Green Conferencing' are offered.

A Life Cycle Assessment of Reusable and Disposable Surgical Caps.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical cap attire plays an important role in creating a safe and sterile environment in procedural suites, thus the choice of reusable versus disposable caps has become an issue of much debate. Given the lack of evidence for differences in surgical site infection (SSI) risk between the two, selecting the cap option with a lower carbon footprint may reduce the environmental impact of surgical procedures. However, many institutions continue to recommend the use of disposable bouffant caps. METHODS: ISO-14044 guidelines were used to complete a process-based life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impact of disposable bouffant caps and reusable cotton caps, specifically focusing on CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions, water use and health impacts. RESULTS: Reusable cotton caps reduced CO2e emissions by 79% when compared to disposable bouffant caps (10 kg versus 49 kg CO2e) under the base model scenario with a similar reduction seen in disability-adjusted life years. However, cotton caps were found to be more water intensive than bouffant caps (67.56 L versus 12.66 L) with the majority of water use secondary to production or manufacturing. CONCLUSIONS: Reusable cotton caps have lower total lifetime CO2e emissions compared to disposable bouffant caps across multiple use scenarios. Given the lack of evidence suggesting a superior choice for surgical site infection prevention, guidelines should recommend reusable cotton caps to reduce the environmental impact of surgical procedures.

The Environmental Impacts of Electronic Medical Records Versus Paper Records at a Large Eye Hospital in India: Life Cycle Assessment Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers worldwide are rapidly adopting electronic medical record (EMR) systems, replacing paper record-keeping systems. Despite numerous benefits to EMRs, the environmental emissions associated with medical record-keeping are unknown. Given the need for urgent climate action, understanding the carbon footprint of EMRs will assist in decarbonizing their adoption and use. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate and compare the environmental emissions associated with paper medical record-keeping and its replacement EMR system at a high-volume eye care facility in southern India. METHODS: We conducted the life cycle assessment methodology per the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14040 standard, with primary data supplied by the eye care facility. Data on the paper record-keeping system include the production, use, and disposal of paper and writing utensils in 2016. The EMR system was adopted at this location in 2018. Data on the EMR system include the allocated production and disposal of capital equipment (such as computers and routers); the production, use, and disposal of consumable goods like paper and writing utensils; and the electricity required to run the EMR system. We excluded built infrastructure and cooling loads (eg. buildings and ventilation) from both systems. We used sensitivity analyses to model the effects of practice variation and data uncertainty and Monte Carlo assessments to statistically compare the 2 systems, with and without renewable electricity sources. RESULTS: This location's EMR system was found to emit substantially more greenhouse gases (GHGs) than their paper medical record system (195,000 kg carbon dioxide equivalents [CO2e] per year or 0.361 kg CO2e per patient visit compared with 20,800 kg CO2e per year or 0.037 kg CO2e per patient). However, sensitivity analyses show that the effect of electricity sources is a major factor in determining which record-keeping system emits fewer GHGs. If the study hospital sourced all electricity from renewable sources such as solar or wind power rather than the Indian electric grid, their EMR emissions would drop to 24,900 kg CO2e (0.046 kg CO2e per patient), a level comparable to the paper record-keeping system. Energy-efficient EMR equipment (such as computers and monitors) is the next largest factor impacting emissions, followed by equipment life spans. Multimedia Appendix 1 includes other emissions impact categories. CONCLUSIONS: The climate-changing emissions associated with an EMR system are heavily dependent on the sources of electricity. With a decarbonized electricity source, the EMR system's GHG emissions are on par with paper medical record-keeping, and decarbonized grids would likely have a much broader benefit to society. Though we found that the EMR system produced more emissions than a paper record-keeping system, this study does not account for potential expanded environmental gains from EMRs, including expanding access to care while reducing patient travel and operational efficiencies that can reduce unnecessary or redundant care.

How Ophthalmologists Can Decarbonize Eye Care: A Review of Existing Sustainability Strategies and Steps Ophthalmologists Can Take.

TOPIC: Understanding approaches to sustainability in cataract surgery and their risks and benefits. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In the United States, health care is responsible for approximately 8.5% of greenhouse gas (GHG), and cataract surgery is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures. Ophthalmologists can contribute to reducing GHG emissions, which lead to a steadily increasing list of health concerns ranging from trauma to food instability. METHODS: We conducted a literature review to identify the benefits and risks of sustainability interventions. We then organized these interventions into a decision tree for use by individual surgeons. RESULTS: Identified sustainability interventions fall into the domains of advocacy and education, pharmaceuticals, process, and supplies and waste. Existing literature shows certain interventions may be safe, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly. These include dispensing medications at home to patients after surgery, multi-dosing appropriate medications, training staff to properly sort medical waste, reducing the number of supplies used during surgery, and implementing immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery where clinically appropriate. The literature was lacking on the benefits or risks for some interventions, such as switching specific single-use supplies to reusables or implementing a hub-and-spoke-style operating room setup. Many of the advocacy and education interventions have inadequate literature specific to ophthalmology but are likely to have minimal risks. CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmologists can engage in a variety of safe and effective approaches to reduce or eliminate dangerous GHG emissions associated with cataract surgery. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Waste audits in healthcare: A systematic review and description of best practices.

Healthcare generates large amounts of waste, harming both environmental and human health. Waste audits are the standard method for measuring and characterizing waste. This is a systematic review of healthcare waste audits, describing their methods and informing more standardized auditing and reporting. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Inspec, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection databases for published studies involving direct measurement of waste in medical facilities. We screened 2398 studies, identifying 156 studies for inclusion from 37 countries. Most were conducted to improve local waste sorting policies or practices, with fewer to inform policy development, increase waste diversion or reduce costs. Measurement was quantified mostly by weighing waste, with many also counting items or using interviews or surveys to compile data. Studies spanned single procedures, departments and hospitals, and multiple hospitals or health systems. Waste categories varied, with most including municipal solid waste or biohazardous waste, and others including sharps, recycling and other wastes. There were significant differences in methods and results between high- and low-income countries. The number of healthcare waste audits published has been increasing, with variable quality and general methodologic inconsistency. A greater emphasis on consistent performance and reporting standards would improve the quality, comparability and usefulness of healthcare waste audits.

Climate change and global health: A call to more research and more action.

There is increasing understanding, globally, that climate change and increased pollution will have a profound and mostly harmful effect on human health. This review brings together international experts to describe both the direct (such as heat waves) and indirect (such as vector-borne disease incidence) health impacts of climate change. These impacts vary depending on vulnerability (i.e., existing diseases) and the international, economic, political, and environmental context. This unique review also expands on these issues to address a third category of potential longer-term impacts on global health: famine, population dislocation, and environmental justice and education. This scholarly resource explores these issues fully, linking them to global health in urban and rural settings in developed and developing countries. The review finishes with a practical discussion of action that health professionals around the world in our field can yet take.

Life Cycle Assessment in Orthopedics.

Covid-19 has led to an increase in the use of PPE, gowns, masks, sanitizers, air circulators, and much more, all contributing to an increase in medical waste. Waste generation is one issue. Emissions are another. The two are linked because waste and emissions are both indicators of consumption. However, waste is not the biggest driver of environmental emissions for healthcare. It is the production of medical equipment, particularly disposables that have a bigger impact. Energy use during care, including heating and cooling our facilities, is another. Environmental emissions like greenhouse gases may not correlate with waste generation, especially if the waste is plastic. Carbon is stored in plastic. Unless you're burning plastic, you're not emitting carbon. Healthcare has a waste issue and healthcare has an emissions issue. They are not necessarily the same thing, however, the strategies to mitigate each overlap. Life cycle assessment quantifies emissions from the creation to disposal of medical supplies. This allows the medical community to make informed choices with respect to the methods and materials that are used in providing care. As other specialties take the lead in reducing their environmental footprint, so too, must orthopedic surgery.

The Environmental Impact of Interventional Radiology: An Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from an Academic Interventional Radiology Practice.

PURPOSE: To calculate the volume of greenhouse gases (GHGs) generated by a hospital-based interventional radiology (IR) department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to calculate GHGs emitted by an IR department at a tertiary care academic medical center. The volume of waste generated, amount of disposable supplies and linens used, and the operating times of electrical equipment were recorded for procedures performed between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on 5 consecutive weekdays. LCA was then performed using purchasing data, plug loads for electrical hardware, data from temperature control units, and estimates of emissions related to travel in the area surrounding the medical center. RESULTS: Ninety-eight procedures were performed on 97 patients. The most commonly performed procedures were drainages (30), placement and removal of venous access (21), and computed tomography-guided biopsies (13). Approximately 23,500 kg CO2e were emitted during the study. Sources of CO2 emissions in descending order were related to indoor climate control (11,600 kg CO2e), production and transportation of disposable surgical items (9,640 kg CO2e), electricity plug load for equipment and lighting (1,060 kg CO2e), staff transportation (524 kg CO2e), waste disposal (426 kg CO2e), production, laundering, and disposal of linens (279 kg CO2e), and gas anesthetics (19.3 kg CO2e). CONCLUSIONS: The practice of IR generates substantial GHG volumes, a majority of which come from energy used to maintain climate control, followed by emissions related to single-use surgical supplies. Efforts to reduce the environmental impact of IR may be focused accordingly.

Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Laparoscopic Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the carbon footprint of various sustainability interventions used for laparoscopic hysterectomy. METHODS: We designed interventions for laparoscopic hysterectomy from approaches that sustainable health care organizations advocate. We used a hybrid environmental life cycle assessment framework to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed interventions. We conducted the study from September 2015 to December 2016 at the University of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). RESULTS: The largest carbon footprint savings came from selecting specific anesthetic gases and minimizing the materials used in surgery. Energy-related interventions resulted in a 10% reduction in carbon footprint per case but would result in larger savings for the whole facility. Commonly implemented approaches, such as recycling surgical waste, resulted in less than a 5% reduction in greenhouse gases. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce the environmental emissions of surgeries, health care providers need to implement a combination of approaches, including minimizing materials, moving away from certain heat-trapping anesthetic gases, maximizing instrument reuse or single-use device reprocessing, and reducing off-hour energy use in the operating room. These strategies can reduce the carbon footprint of an average laparoscopic hysterectomy by up to 80%. Recycling alone does very little to reduce environmental footprint. Public Health Implications. Health care services are a major source of environmental emissions and reducing their carbon footprint would improve environmental and human health. Facilities seeking to reduce environmental footprint should take a comprehensive systems approach to find safe and effective interventions and should identify and address policy barriers to implementing more sustainable practices.

Dynamic Life Cycle Assessments of a Conventional Green Building and a Net Zero Energy Building: Exploration of Static, Dynamic, Attributional, and Consequential Electricity Grid Models.

Our study assesses the differences between regional average- and marginal-electricity generation mixes as well as the variability between predicted and observed energy consumption of a "conventional green" Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building and a Net-Zero Energy Living Building (NZEB). The aim of our study was to evaluate the importance of using temporally resolved building-level data while capturing the dynamic effects a changing electrical grid has on the life cycle impacts of buildings. Two static and four dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) models were evaluated for both buildings. Both buildings' results show that the most appropriate models ( hybrid consequential for the LEED Gold building, hourly consequential for the NZEB) significantly modified the use-phase global warming potential (GWP) impacts relative to the design static LCA (49% greater impact for the LEED Gold building; 45% greater reduction for the NZEB). In other words, a "standard" LCA would underestimate the use phase impacts of the LEED Gold building and the benefits of the NZEB in the GWP category. Although the results in this paper are specific to two case study buildings, the methods developed are scalable and can be implemented more widely to improve building life cycle impact estimates.

Evaluating the Life Cycle Environmental Benefits and Trade-Offs of Water Reuse Systems for Net-Zero Buildings.

Aging water infrastructure and increased water scarcity have resulted in higher interest in water reuse and decentralization. Rating systems for high-performance buildings implicitly promote the use of building-scale, decentralized water supply and treatment technologies. It is important to recognize the potential benefits and trade-offs of decentralized and centralized water systems in the context of high-performance buildings. For this reason and to fill a gap in the current literature, we completed a life cycle assessment (LCA) of the decentralized water system of a high-performance, net-zero energy, net-zero water building (NZB) that received multiple green building certifications and compared the results with two modeled buildings (conventional and water efficient) using centralized water systems. We investigated the NZB's impacts over varying lifetimes, conducted a break-even analysis, and included Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis. The results show that, although the NZB performs better in most categories than the conventional building, the water efficient building generally outperforms the NZB. The lifetime of the NZB, septic tank aeration, and use of solar energy have been found to be important factors in the NZB's impacts. While these findings are specific to the case study building, location, and treatment technologies, the framework for comparison of water and wastewater impacts of various buildings can be applied during building design to aid decision making. As we design and operate high-performance buildings, the potential trade-offs of advanced decentralized water treatment systems should be considered.

Carbon footprint and cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article raises awareness about the cost-effectiveness and carbon footprint of various cataract surgery techniques, comparing their relative carbon emissions and expenses: manual small-incision cataract surgery (MSICS), phacoemulsification, and femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: As the most commonly performed surgical procedure worldwide, cataract surgery contributes significantly to global climate change. The carbon footprint of a single phacoemulsification cataract surgery is estimated to be comparable to that of a typical person's life for 1 week. Phacoemulsification has been estimated to be between 1.4 and 4.7 times more expensive than MSICS; however, given the lower degree of postoperative astigmatism and other potential complications, phacoemulsification may still be preferable to MSICS in relatively resource-rich settings requiring high levels of visual function. Limited data are currently available regarding the environmental and financial impact of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery; however, in its current form, it appears to be the least cost-effective option. SUMMARY: Cataract surgery has a high value to patients. The relative environmental impact and cost of different types of cataract surgery should be considered as this treatment becomes even more broadly available globally and as new technologies are developed and implemented.

Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States.

The healthcare sector is a driver of economic growth in the U.S., with spending on healthcare in 2012 reaching $2.8 trillion, or 17% of the U.S. gross domestic product, but it is also a significant source of emissions that adversely impact environmental and public health. The current state of the healthcare industry offers significant opportunities for environmental efficiency improvements, potentially leading to reductions in costs, resource use, and waste without compromising patient care. However, limited research exists that can provide quantitative, sustainable solutions. The operating room is the most resource-intensive area of a hospital, and surgery is therefore an important focal point to understand healthcare-related emissions. Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to quantify environmental emissions from four different surgical approaches (abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic, and robotic) used in the second most common major procedure for women in the U.S., the hysterectomy. Data were collected from 62 cases of hysterectomy. Life cycle assessment results show that major sources of environmental emissions include the production of disposable materials and single-use surgical devices, energy used for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, and anesthetic gases. By scientifically evaluating emissions, the healthcare industry can strategically optimize its transition to a more sustainable system.

Analysis of Intraocular Lens Packaging Weight and Waste.

PURPOSE: To analyze waste from intraocular lens (IOL) packaging across a variety of brands. SETTING: Private clinical practice. DESIGN: Prospective weight and composition analysis of all elements of unopened packages of IOLs sold in the US-both preloaded and non-preloaded. METHODS: Samples were collected from multiple IOL companies in 2023. The primary endpoint for comparison was the total weight of each IOL package, because this generally correlates with the carbon footprint. The percentage of total weight contributed by paper, plastic, Tyvek®, foil, sterile saline solution (fluid), metal, or glossy paper material was also calculated. RESULTS: The non-preloaded IOL package weights ranged from 29 g (Zeiss Lucia) to 80 g (RxSIGHT LAL). Most of the weight was attributable to paper, including the box and instructions for use (IFU) pamphlet. The latter was generally the largest component within the box. The weights of preloaded IOL packages were generally higher than those of their non-preloaded counterparts and ranged from 67 g (Hoya iSert) to 116 g (Rayner RayOne Spheric). CONCLUSIONS: Meaningful differences in the IOL packaging weight and waste were noted across different models and manufacturers. Electronic IFU linked to QR codes could replace the need for an IFU pamphlet within every box, significantly reducing the box's size, weight, and carbon footprint. Pairing preloaded IOL cartridges with autoclavable injectors could reduce associated waste. Because of the enormous global volume of IOL implantation, these waste-reducing strategies should be prioritized by IOL manufacturers.