Introduction:Understanding the environmental effects of surgery can help develop environmentally sound practices. Objectives & Hypotheses: Examine the environmental impact of performing septorhinoplasty. Study Design: Case study. Methods: A primary septorhinoplasty was selected. Materials, medications, devices, energy used were identified, medical waste and torn plastics were characterized and measured. Global warming potential (GWP) and microplastics generated were calculated using published conversion rates. Results: GWP of this septorhinoplasty was 192.3 kg CO2e. The greatest contributor to GWP was the use of disposable supplies (160.95 kg CO2e), with smaller contributions from the sterilization of surgical equipment, anesthetic gases, environmental HVAC energy, surgical instrument manufacturing and incineration of regulated medical waste. Microplastic production ranged between 97,637-530,638 microplastics. Conclusions:The environmental cost of septorhinoplasty was dominated by disposable items, contributing to GWP and microplastic production. Through awareness of the environmental impact of their choices, surgeons can develop mitigation strategies to minimize their effect.
Sclafani et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: