Literature DB >> 1578596

A quantitative, qualitative, and critical assessment of surgical waste. Surgeons venture through the trash can.

M E Tieszen1, J C Gruenberg.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the surgical waste produced from several common surgical procedures, define categories of waste that might be readily separated for alternative disposal practices or substitution, and determine the change in surgical waste output that elimination or alternative handling methods may effect.
DESIGN: A case series evaluating the surgical waste from five types of surgical procedures including operations of the back, heart, abdomen, hip and knee, and herniorrhaphies, prospectively identified and allocated at the availability of the investigator.
SETTING: A single tertiary community teaching hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: Weight, volume, and percentage of disposable linen, paper, and plastic plus miscellaneous material from surgical waste with a later subset separating plastics from miscellaneous items to completely identify all categories.
RESULTS: Surgical waste weighing 610.5 lb (274.7 kg) and occupying 171.6 cu ft (5.1 m3) from 27 cases was examined. Disposable linens accounted for 39% of the weight; paper, 7%; plastic, 26%; and miscellaneous waste, 27%. By volume, disposable linen and paper accounted for 69%; plastic, 23%; and miscellaneous waste, 7%. Disposable linen, paper, and recyclable plastic accounted for 73% +/- 7% (mean +/- SD) by weight and 93% +/- 4% by volume of total surgical waste.
CONCLUSION: Nationally, annual surgical waste from these five procedures weighs 5.1 x 10(7) lb (2.3 x 10(7) kg) and occupies 1.4 x 10(7) cu ft (4.0 x 10(5) m3). By using reusable linen products and engaging in recycling methods currently available and feasible, we estimate that weight reductions of 73% and volume reductions of 93% in surgical waste are possible.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1578596

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  11 in total

1.  People, planet and profits: the case for greening operating rooms.

Authors:  Yoan K Kagoma; Nathan Stall; Edward Rubinstein; Douglas Naudie
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-06-04       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Surgical waste audit of 5 total knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  Nathan M Stall; Yoan M Kagoma; Jennifer N Bondy; Douglas Naudie
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.089

3.  Development and initial porcine and cadaver experience with three-dimensional printing of endoscopic and laparoscopic equipment.

Authors:  Michael del Junco; Zhamshid Okhunov; Renai Yoon; Ramtin Khanipour; Samuel Juncal; Garen Abedi; Achim Lusch; Jaime Landman
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  Green medicine. Environmental impact of health care.

Authors:  K S Worton
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Reusable instruments are more cost-effective than disposable instruments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  K N Apelgren; M L Blank; C A Slomski; N S Hadjis
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Cataract surgery and environmental sustainability: Waste and lifecycle assessment of phacoemulsification at a private healthcare facility.

Authors:  Cassandra L Thiel; Emily Schehlein; Thulasiraj Ravilla; R D Ravindran; Alan L Robin; Osamah J Saeedi; Joel S Schuman; Rengaraj Venkatesh
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 3.351

Review 7.  Hospitals and plastics. Dioxin prevention and medical waste incinerators.

Authors:  J Thornton; M McCally; P Orris; J Weinberg
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1996 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.792

8.  Bioethics and Global Climate Change.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Bioethics Forum       Date:  2009

9.  Glove and instrument changing to prevent tumour seeding in cancer surgery: a survey of surgeons' beliefs and practices.

Authors:  D Berger-Richardson; R S Xu; R A Gladdy; J A McCart; A Govindarajan; C J Swallow
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 3.677

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

Authors:  Cassandra L Thiel; Matthew Eckelman; Richard Guido; Matthew Huddleston; Amy E Landis; Jodi Sherman; Scott O Shrake; Noe Copley-Woods; Melissa M Bilec
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2015-01-14       Impact factor: 9.028

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.