Background
If the health-care sector were a country, it would rank as the fifth-largest environmental polluter globally. Minimally invasive procedures are particularly resource-intensive and energy-intensive, highlighting the importance of assessing their environmental impact in addition to their clinical benefits. In this study, we quantified the environmental impacts of two minimally invasive, clinically equivalent treatments for uterine fibroids: uterine artery embolisation (non-surgical) and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (surgical).
Methods
This study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in the Netherlands. Using comparative lifecycle assessment, we evaluated care pathways from outpatient appointments to follow-up visits, based on 40 waste inventories, considering material production, energy use, pharmaceutical production, sterilisation, transport, waste disposal, and recycling.
Findings
The embolisation procedure generated a median of 3·9 kg waste and 39 kg CO2-equivalents (CO2-eq), compared to 7·9 kg of waste and 120 kg of CO2-eq generated by the hysterectomy procedure. When accounting for both hospitalisation and outpatient visits, 9 kg of waste and 215 kg of CO2-eq were generated by the embolisation procedure and 6 kg of waste and 186 kg of CO2-eq were generated by the hysterectomy pathway. Key contributors to environmental impact included patient and staff travel; electricity consumption for heating, ventilation and air-conditioning; and single-use items.
Interpretation
This study reveals the overall environmental footprint of two minimally invasive treatments in gynaecology and identifies key areas for mitigation strategies within each care pathway. Comprehensive environmental impact assessments can offer valuable insights for health-care systems that aim to balance clinical effectiveness with environmental sustainability.
Funding
Amsterdam University Medical Centre Doctoral School.
扫码关注我们
求助内容:
应助结果提醒方式:
