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

被引:11
|
作者
Fuschi, Andrea [1 ]
Pastore, Antonio Luigi [1 ]
Al Salhi, Yazan [1 ]
Martoccia, Alessia [1 ]
De Nunzio, Cosimo [2 ]
Tema, Giorgia [2 ]
Rera, Onofrio Antonio [1 ]
Carbone, Flavia [3 ]
Asimakopoulos, Anastasios D. [4 ]
Sequi, Manfredi Bruno [1 ]
Valenzi, Fabio Maria [1 ]
Suraci, Paolo Pietro [1 ]
Scalzo, Silvio [1 ]
Del Giudice, Francesco [5 ]
Nardecchia, Stefano [6 ]
Bozzini, Giorgio [7 ]
Corsini, Alessandro [6 ]
Sciarra, Alessandro [5 ]
Carbone, Antonio [1 ]
机构
[1] Sapienza Univ Rome, Fac Pharm & Med, Dept Med Surg Sci & Biotechnol, Urol Unit, Latina, Italy
[2] Sapienza Univ Rome, St Andrea Hosp, Dept Urol, Rome, Italy
[3] Nonprofit Assoc Res Urol, Urores, Latina, Italy
[4] Fdn PTV Policlin Tor Vergata, Unit Urol, Rome, Italy
[5] Sapienza Univ Rome, Dept Urol, Policlin Umberto 1, Rome, Italy
[6] Sapienza Univ Rome, Dept Mech & Aerosp Engn, Rome, Italy
[7] ASST Lariana St Anna Hosp, Dept Urol, Como, Italy
关键词
LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; CARBON FOOTPRINT; HEALTH-CARE; CANCER;
D O I
10.1038/s41391-023-00672-4
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
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 similar to 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 similar to 47 kg and similar to 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.
引用
收藏
页码:272 / 278
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The impact of radical prostatectomy on global climate: a prospective multicentre study comparing laparoscopic versus robotic surgery
    Andrea Fuschi
    Antonio Luigi Pastore
    Yazan Al Salhi
    Alessia Martoccia
    Cosimo De Nunzio
    Giorgia Tema
    Onofrio Antonio Rera
    Flavia Carbone
    Anastasios D. Asimakopoulos
    Manfredi Bruno Sequi
    Fabio Maria Valenzi
    Paolo Pietro Suraci
    Silvio Scalzo
    Francesco Del Giudice
    Stefano Nardecchia
    Giorgio Bozzini
    Alessandro Corsini
    Alessandro Sciarra
    Antonio Carbone
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2024, 27 : 272 - 278
  • [2] Laparoscopic versus robotic radical prostatectomy
    Guillonneau, BD
    NATURE CLINICAL PRACTICE UROLOGY, 2005, 2 (02): : 60 - 61
  • [3] Laparoscopic versus robotic radical prostatectomy
    Bertrand D Guillonneau
    Nature Clinical Practice Urology, 2005, 2 : 60 - 61
  • [4] Robotic versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
    Thomas E Ahlering
    Nature Clinical Practice Urology, 2004, 1 : 58 - 59
  • [5] Robotic versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
    Ahlering, Thomas E.
    NATURE CLINICAL PRACTICE UROLOGY, 2004, 1 (02): : 58 - 59
  • [6] Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: A prospective assessment of postoperative pain
    Webster, TM
    Herrell, SD
    Chang, SS
    Cookson, MS
    Baumgartner, RG
    Anderson, LW
    Smith, JA
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2005, 174 (03): : 912 - 914
  • [7] Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy versus laparoscopic radical Prostatectomy
    Lorenz, Judith
    AKTUELLE UROLOGIE, 2022, 53 (03) : 220 - 220
  • [8] Comments on radical Prostatectomy - laparoscopic versus robotic
    Thueroff, J. W.
    UROLOGE, 2012, 51 (05): : 630 - 632
  • [9] Radical prostatectomy: Morbidity of the robotic versus the laparoscopic approach
    Rozet, Francois
    Barret, Eric
    Cathelineau, Xavier
    Vallancien, Guy
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2006, 20 : A218 - A218