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

Distal Radius Fractures in Older Patients: Is Anatomic Reduction Necessary?

The relationship between radiographic and functional outcomes in older patients with distal radius fractures is controversial. We explored this relationship by assessing the influence of radiographic displacement and fracture comminution on the functional outcomes of these fractures. We also asked whether operative intervention and demographic factors (age, gender, duration of followup) influenced outcome. We examined 53 patients older than 55 years with distal radius fractures with various functional assessments: range of motion (ROM) and strength measurements, three subjective surveys (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation; Modernized Activity Subjective Survey of 2007), a Gartland and Werley score, and an objective, standardized hand performance test (Jebsen-Taylor). We measured angulation, articular gap/stepoff, and radial shortening on final radiographs and fracture comminution of preoperative radiographs. We observed no effect of radiographic displacement on subjective or objective outcome assessments, including standardized hand performance timed testing. Surgically treated fractures were less likely to display residual dorsal angulation and radial shortening, but surgical intervention did not independently predict functional outcome. Fracture comminution, patient gender, and months of followup similarly had no effect on outcome. We found no relationship between anatomic reduction as evidenced by radiographic outcomes and subjective or objective functional outcomes in this older patient cohort