Is a care pathway for enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery environmentally responsible?

INTRODUCTION: Above and beyond the environmentally responsible operating theater, the environmental impact of the pathways of surgically treated patients seems essential but has seldom been considered in the literature. On a parallel track, enhanced recovery programmes (ERP) programs are presently deemed a standard of care. The objective of this review is to determine the carbon footprint of the ERP approach in colorectal surgery. METHOD: This a narrative review based on articles referenced in PubMed. Our search was centered on the environmental impact of an ERP in the context of colorectal surgery. A number of measures included in the national and international guidelines were studied. We utilized the terms "carbon footprint", "sustainability", "energy cost", "environmental footprint", "life cycle assessment" AND a key word for each subject found in the ERP recommendations. RESULTS: Most ERP measures in the context of colorectal surgery are factually or intuitively virtuous from an ecological standpoint. With a 3-day reduction in average hospital stay resulting from ERP, the program permits a reduction of at least 375kg CO2e/patient (Appendices 1 and 2). The most substantial part of this reduction is achieved during the perioperative period. While some measures, such as short fasting, are ecologically neutral, others (treatment of comorbidities, smoking cessation, hypothermia prevention, antibiotic prophylaxis, laparoscopy, absence of drains or probes, thromboprophylaxis, early feeding and mobilization…) lead to fewer postoperative complications, and can consequently be considered as environmentally responsible. Conversely, other measures, one example being robotic surgery, leave a substantial carbon footprint. CONCLUSION: ERP is congruent with two pillars of sustainable development: the social pillar (improved patient recovery, and better caregiver working conditions fostered by team spirit), and the economic pillar (decreased healthcare expenses). While the third, environmental pillar is intuitively present, the low number of published studies remains a limitation to be overcome in future qualitative studies.