Environmental Impact of Minimally Invasive Radical and Partial Nephrectomy: A Multicenter Prospective Comparative Study Comparing Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Surgical Approaches
Source abstract
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive surgery has improved patient outcomes but raises environmental concerns due to carbon emissions from disposable instruments, energy consumption, and hospital resource use. This study evaluates the carbon footprint of robot-assisted and laparoscopic nephrectomies. Methods: A multicenter prospective study analyzed 162 patients undergoing robot-assisted or laparoscopic partial (RAPN, LPN) and radical nephrectomy (RARN, LRN). Life cycle assessment (LCA) quantified CO2 emissions from instrument use, sterilization, and energy consumption. Results: Robot-assisted procedures had lower CO2 emissions than laparoscopic approaches. Emissions from instrument disposal were 9.04 kg in RAPN vs. 12.14 kg in LPN (p = 0.02) and 8.74 kg in RARN vs. 11.45 kg in LRN (p = 0.03). Despite higher intraoperative energy use, robot-assisted surgery produced 3–4 kg less CO2 per procedure due to reusable instruments and shorter hospitalization. Conclusions: Robot-assisted nephrectomy reduces environmental impact by minimizing waste and hospital stays. Efforts should focus on reusable instruments, energy efficiency, and sustainability initiatives to mitigate surgical carbon footprints while ensuring high-quality care.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Renal cell carcinoma treatment · Radiation Dose and Imaging · Abdominal Surgery and Complications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Urology Unit, Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Faculty of Pharmacy and Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Franco Faggiana 1668, 04100 Latina, Italy
Department of Urology, Sant’Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, 00189 Rome, Italy
Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Via Giuseppe Ponzio 34, 20133 Milan, Italy
Unit of Urology, Fondazione PTV Policlinico Tor Vergata, Viale Oxford 81, 00133 Rome, Italy
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Eudossiana 18, 00184 Rome, Italy
Department of Urology, ASST Lariana-Sant’Anna Hospital, Via Ravona 20, San Fermo della Battaglia, 22042 Como, Italy
Department of Urology, University of Pisa, Lungarno Pacinotti 43, 56121 Pisa, Italy
Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Viale dell’Università 33, 00185 Rome, Italy
References (43)
Show source-provided references
1. Advancements in Robotic Surgery: A Comprehensive Overview of Current Utilizations and Upcoming Frontiers
2. Systematic review of team performance in minimally invasive abdominal surgery10.1002/bjs5.50133 ↗
3. Is minimally invasive orthopedic surgery safer than open? A systematic review of systematic reviews10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106616 ↗
4. Fuschi, A., Al Salhi, Y., Sequi, M.B., Velotti, G., Martoccia, A., Suraci, P.P., Scalzo, S., Asimakopoulos, A., Bozzini, G., and Zucchi, A. (2021). Evaluation of Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life in Elderly Patients (>75 y.o.) Undergoing Minimally Invasive Radical Cystectomy with Single Stoma Ureterocutaneostomy vs. Bricker Intracorporeal Ileal Conduit Urinary Diversion. J. Clin. Med., 11.10.3390/jcm11010136 ↗
5. Robotic Head and Neck Surgery10.1016/j.soc.2018.07.008 ↗
6. Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy10.1007/s00464-021-08728-z ↗
7. The learning curves of major laparoscopic and robotic procedures in urology: A systematic review
8. Picozzi, P., Nocco, U., Labate, C., Gambini, I., Puleo, G., Silvi, F., Pezzillo, A., Mantione, R., and Cimolin, V. (2024). Advances in Robotic Surgery: A Review of New Surgical Platforms. Electronics, 13.10.20944/preprints202410.0121.v1 ↗
9. National Trends and Cost of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Urology10.1016/j.urpr.2014.09.002 ↗
10. Application of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: An Italian survey10.1007/s13304-018-0535-3 ↗
11. The evolution of minimally invasive bariatric surgery10.1016/j.jss.2013.02.036 ↗
12. Use of minimally invasive surgery in emergency general surgery procedures10.1007/s00464-019-07016-1 ↗
13. Minimally invasive surgery in gynecology. Reconciling the past with a view to the future
14. Health Care without Harm (2023, October 15). Health Care’s Climate Footprint. Climate-Smart Health Care Series Green Paper Number One (2019). Available online: https://noharm-uscanada.org.
15. The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations: A Systematic Review10.1097/SLA.0000000000003951 ↗
16. Eco-efficiency of disposable and reusable surgical instruments—A scissors case10.1007/s11367-013-0547-7 ↗
17. A comparison of reusable and disposable perioperative textiles: Sustainability state-of-the-art 201210.1213/ANE.0b013e31824d9cc3 ↗
18. The impact on life cycle carbon footprint of converting from disposable to reusable sharps containers in a large US hospital geographically distant from manufacturing and processing facilities10.7717/peerj.6204 ↗
19. Comparison of reusable and disposable laparatomy pads10.1007/BF02978647 ↗
20. The financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use plastic anaesthetic drug trays10.1177/0310057X1003800320 ↗
21. Comparative life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable laryngeal mask airways10.1213/ANE.0b013e31824f6959 ↗
22. Life Cycle Assessment and Costing Methods for Device Procurement: Comparing Reusable and Single-Use Disposable Laryngoscopes10.1213/ANE.0000000000002683 ↗
23. The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: A comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035 ↗
24. (2006). Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines (Standard No. ISO 14044:2006). Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html.
25. Karali, N., Khanna, N., and Shah, N. (2024). Climate Impact of Primary Plastic Production, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.10.2172/2336722 ↗
26. Sun, Y., Kojima, S., Nakaohkubo, K., Zhao, J., and Ni, S. (2023). Analysis and Evaluation of Indoor Environment, Occupant Satisfaction, and Energy Consumption in General Hospital in China. Buildings, 13.10.3390/buildings13071675 ↗
27. Correction: Reusable versus single-use ICU equipment: What’s the environmental footprint?10.1007/s00134-023-07292-5 ↗
28. International comparison of health care carbon footprints10.1088/1748-9326/ab19e1 ↗
29. Eckelman, M.J., and Sherman, J. (2016). Environmental Impacts of the U.S. Health Care System and Effects on Public Health. PLoS ONE, 11.10.1371/journal.pone.0157014 ↗
30. SDC (2008). NHS England Carbon Emissions: Carbon Footprinting Study, Sustainable Development Commission.
31. Health care’s response to climate change: A carbon footprint assessment of the NHS in England10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30271-0 ↗
32. Canada’s health system is among the least green10.1503/cmaj.1095834 ↗
33. The carbon footprints of home and in-center maintenance hemodialysis in the United Kingdom10.1111/j.1542-4758.2010.00523.x ↗
34. The carbon footprint of a renal service in the United Kingdom10.1093/qjmed/hcq150 ↗
35. Climate-smart Actions in the Operating Theatre for Improving Sustainability Practices: A Systematic Review10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.027 ↗
36. Kloevekorn, L., Roemeling, O., Fakha, A., Hage, E., and Smailhodzic, E. (2024). Decarbonizing surgical care: A qualitative systematic review guided by the Congruence Model. BMC Health Serv. Res., 24.10.1186/s12913-024-11929-6 ↗
37. The impact of surgery on global climate: A carbon footprinting study of operating theatres in three health systems10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30162-6 ↗
38. The impact of radical prostatectomy on global climate: A prospective multicentre study comparing laparoscopic versus robotic surgery10.1038/s41391-023-00672-4 ↗
39. Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Laparoscopic Surgery10.2105/AJPH.2018.304397 ↗
40. The green operating room: Simple changes to reduce cost and our carbon footprint10.1177/000313481307900708 ↗
41. The carbon footprint of cataract surgery10.1038/eye.2013.9 ↗
42. Digital, N. (2020). Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity, 2019–2020, NHS Digital.
43. The science of climate change and the effect of anaesthetic gas emissions10.1111/anae.16189 ↗