Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Clinical Research
  • Published:

The impact of radical prostatectomy on global climate: a prospective multicentre study comparing laparoscopic versus robotic surgery

Abstract

Background

More than 4% of the global greenhouse gas emissions are generated by healthcare system. Focusing on the environmental impact of minimally invasive surgery, we assessed and compared the CO2 emissions between Robot-assisted (RALP) and Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (LRP).

Methods

In patients prospectively enrolled, we evaluated the age, surgical and anesthesiologic time, postoperative intensive care unit and hospital stay, blood transfusion, pre- and postoperative hemoglobin and Gleason score, open conversion need, and complications (Clavien–Dindo classification). We assessed the life cycle to estimate the energy consumption for surgical procedures and hospital stays. We reported the materials, CO2 produced, and fluid quantity infused and dispersed. Disposable and reusable materials and instruments were weighed and divided into metal, plastic, and composite fibers. The CO2 consumption for disposal and decontamination was also evaluated.

Results

Of the 223 patients investigated, 119 and 104 patients underwent RALP and LRP, respectively. The two groups were comparable as regards age and preoperative Gleason score. The laparoscopic and robotic instruments weighed 1733 g and 1737 g, respectively. The CO2 emissions due to instrumentation were higher in the laparoscopic group, with the majority coming from plastic and composite fiber components. The CO2 emissions for metal components were higher in the robotic group. The robot functioned at 3.5 kW/h, producing 4 kg/h of CO2. The laparoscopic column operated at 600 W/h, emitting ~1 kg/h of CO2. The operating room operated at 3,0 kW/h. The operating time was longer in the laparoscopic group, resulting in higher CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions from hospital room energy consumption were lower in the robot-assisted group. The total CO2 emissions were ~47 kg and ~60 kg per procedure in the robot-assisted and laparoscopic groups, respectively.

Conclusions

RALP generates substantially less CO2 than LRP owing to the use of more reusable surgical supplies, shorter operative time and hospital stay.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Total CO2 emission.
Fig. 2: Different composition CO2 emission.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are restricted by privacy, but might be available upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Rizan C, Bhutta MF. Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2022;36:4067–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08728-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Health Care without Harm (2019) Health care’s climate footprint, Climate-smart health care series green p (1. Health Care without Harm (2019) Health care’s climate footprint 2019) aper number one. https://noharm-uscanada.org/content/global/health-care-climate-footprint-report. Accessed 27 Jan 2021.

  3. NHS England and NHS Improvement (2020) Delivering a ‘Net Zero’ National Health Service. https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2020/10/delivering-a-net-zero-national-health-service.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2020.

  4. Rizan C, Steinbach I, Nicholson R, Lillywhite R, Reed M, Bhutta MF. The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations: A Systematic Review. Ann Surg. 2020;272:986–95. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003951.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ibbotson S, Dettmer T, Kara S, Herrmann C. Eco-efficiency of disposable and reusable surgical instruments—a scissors case. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2013;18:1137–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0547-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Overcash M. A comparison of reusable and disposable perioperative textiles: sustainability state-of-the-art 2012. Anesth Analg. 2012;114:1055–66. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e31824d9cc3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kümmerer K, Dettenkofer M, Scherrer M. Comparison of reusable and disposable laparatomy pads. Int J LCA. 1996;1:67–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McPherson B, Sharip M, Grimmond T. The impact on life cycle carbon footprint of converting from disposable to reusable sharps containers in a large US hospital geographically distant from manufacturing and processing facilities. Peer J. 2019;7:e6204. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. McGain F, McAlister S, McGavin A, Story D. The financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use plastic anaesthetic drug trays. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2010;38:538–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X1003800320.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eckelman M, Mosher M, Gonzalez A, Sherman J. Comparative life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable laryngeal mask airways. Anesth Analg. 2012;114:1067–72. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e31824f6959.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sherman JD, Raibley LA 4th, Eckelman MJ. Life Cycle Assessment and Costing Methods for Device Procurement: Comparing Reusable and Single-Use Disposable Laryngoscopes. Anesth Analg. 2018;127:434–43. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002683.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. International Organization for Standardazation. ISO 14044: 2006 Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. 2016. https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html.

  13. Sustainable Development Unit, UK National Health Service 2016 Carbon Footprint Updatefor NHS in England 2015 (Cambridge: Sustainable Development Unit).

  14. Lenzen M, Malik A, Li M, Fry J, Weisz H, Pichler PP, et al. The environmental footprint of health care: a global assessment. Lancet Planet Health. 2020;4:e271–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30121-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Eckelman MJ, Sherman J. Environmental Impacts of the U.S. Health Care System and Effects on Public Health. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0157014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157014.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Sustainable Development Unit, UK National Health Service 2009 NHS England Carbon Emissions: Carbon Footprinting Report (Cambridge: Sustainable Development Unit) (Sustainable Development Commission). 2009. https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/2377.

  17. Sustainable Development Unit, UK National Health Service 2013 Carbon Footprint update for NHS in England 2012 (Cambridge: Sustainable Development Unit).

  18. Chung JW, Meltzer DO. Estimate of the carbon footprint of the US health care sector. JAMA 2009;302:1970–2. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1610.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. MacNeill AJ, Lillywhite R, Brown CJ. The impact of surgery on global climate: a carbon footprinting study of operating theatres in three health systems. Lancet Planet Health. 2017;1:e381–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30162-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Connor A, Lillywhite R, Cooke MW. The carbon footprints of home and in-center maintenance hemodialysis in the United Kingdom. Hemodial Int. 2011;15:39–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4758.2010.00523.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Connor A, Lillywhite R, Cooke MW. The carbon footprint of a renal service in the United Kingdom. QJM. 2010;103:965–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcq150.

  22. AIOM-AIRTUM (2021) I numeri del cancro in Italia. Brescia: Intermedia editore.

  23. Thiel, C. L., Woods, N. C. & Bilec, M. M. Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Laparoscopic Surgery. Am J Public Health. 2018;108:S158–S164.

  24. Thiel CL, Woods NC, Bilec MM. Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Laparoscopic Surgery. Am J Public Health. 2018;108:S158–64. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304397.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Morris DS, Wright T, Somner JE, Connor A. The carbon footprint of cataract surgery. Eye. 2013;27:495–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2013.9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Wormer BA, Augenstein VA, Carpenter CL, Burton PV, Yokeley WT, Prabhu AS, et al. The green operating room: simple changes to reduce cost and our carbon footprint. Am Surg. 2013;79:666–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. NHS Digital (2020) Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity. 2019–20. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-admitted-patient-care-activity/2019-20.

  28. Hager B, Kraywinkel K, Keck B, Katalinic A, Meyer M, Zeissig SR, et al. Increasing use of radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer in the USA and Germany: a comparative population-based study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20:61–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2016.43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Abdollah F, Dalela D, Sood A, Sammon J, Cho R, Nocera L, et al. Functional outcomes of clinically high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20:395–400. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2017.26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Vigneswaran HT, Jagai JS, Greenwald DT, Patel AP, Kumar M, Dobbs RW, et al. Association between environmental quality and prostate cancer stage at diagnosis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24:1129–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00370-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Study conceptualization: AF, ALP and AC; Data collection and analysis: ALP, AF, OAR, PPS, GB, ADA, FDG, AM; Formal analysis: SN, FC, SS, AC, AF; Investigation: MBS, OAR, GB, SN, AC, FMV, AM, GT, FDG; Methodology: ALP, AC, AF, PPS and AC; Supervision: YAS, ALP, CdN; Writing—original draft: MBS, OAR, AS, FDG, ALP, AF; Writing—revision and editing: AF, AC, FDG, AS, ADA, GB, ALP, CDN, GT.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Luigi Pastore.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fuschi, A., Pastore, A.L., Al Salhi, Y. et al. The impact of radical prostatectomy on global climate: a prospective multicentre study comparing laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 27, 272–278 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00672-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00672-4

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links