Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Risk factor analysis of 170 single-institutional contegra implantations in pulmonary position

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate risk factors affecting survival of Contegra grafts used in the pulmonary position. METHODS: One hundred seventy Contegra implanted (2001 to 2007) in the pulmonary position for replacement after a prior repair (90), Ross procedure (29), tetralogy of Fallot and variants (22), truncus arteriosus (13), Rastelli procedure (8), and miscellaneous (8) were reviewed. Median age was 107 (0.1 to 894) months. Follow-up was 96% complete with a median duration of 65 (7 to 98) months. RESULTS: There were 7 early and 6 late deaths (none Contegra related) with a survival of 92%±2% at 98 months. Thirty-four Contegra were replaced at a median duration of 43 (7 to 82) months. Eight of 28 balloon-dilated Contegra remain palliated at 49 (23 to 73) months. Multivariate analysis showed Contegra less than 16 mm (p<0.001; HR [hazard ratio] 0.07), high pulmonary pressure (p<0.001; HR 4), and prior operation era (p=0.006; HR 0.3) as independent risk factors for Contegra replacement. The freedom from replacement for Contegra less than 16 mm and 16 mm or greater were 48%±8% and 98%±2%; for presence and absence of high pulmonary pressure were 52%±11% and 88%±3% and for era 1 and 2 were 77%±5% and 88%±4% at 60 months, respectively. Twenty-three of 123 surviving Contegra have a mean Doppler gradient greater than 20 mm Hg. Contegra less than 16 mm, smaller age group, obstructive arborization, and era 1 were significantly associated with higher gradients. While 18 (15%) surviving Contegra have moderate or more regurgitation, 88 (72%) have no significant gradient or regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Contegra grafts integrate well into the body. Larger Contegra show predictable function with a survival approaching homografts over medium term. Better case selection as one ascends the learning curve tends to improve survival. With easy availability and predictable quality, Contegra grafts continue to be a promising complement to homografts

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background: Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods: This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was coprioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low-middle-income countries. Results: In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of 'single-use' consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low-middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion: This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high- and low-middle-income countries