Less Is More: Going Green in Urological Procedures.

IF 1.7 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Nicholas Choi, Danica May, Dane Stephens, Eugene Lee
{"title":"Less Is More: Going Green in Urological Procedures.","authors":"Nicholas Choi, Danica May, Dane Stephens, Eugene Lee","doi":"10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Operating rooms produce significant waste that is disproportionate compared with other departments within health care systems. In this pilot study, we aim to quantify the recyclable and nonrecyclable waste generated by urologic procedures at our institution, as well as survey other urologists' recycling practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected from January 2022 to October 2024 for 5 urologic procedures: ureteral stent exchange, ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stone removal, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, and radical cystectomy. Weight was collected before start of case and at completion and categorized into 2 groups: nonrecyclable solid waste and combined recyclable material. Each procedure had weights collected in 3 separate cases. To survey other hospital's recycling, a nonvalidated 11-question survey on recycling practices was sent to urologists within the 8 AUA sections.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average total waste weight in kg (nonrecyclable solid waste/recyclable waste) included: stent exchange: 1.87/1.2, ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stone removal: 3.7/1.0, percutaneous nephrolithotomy: 6.5/1.65, robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: 11.3/2.97, and radical cystectomy: 11.69/2.67. We received 30 responses to our survey covering all 8 AUA sections. Fourteen of 34 (41.2%) academic hospitals had recycling in the OR vs 6 of 21 (28.6%) community hospitals; 38.8% felt knowledgeable of the items to recycle and 11.1% received proper training on recycling in the OR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This pilot study highlights the waste generated in urology operating rooms, with a significant proportion that is recyclable. This presents an opportunity for intervention with recycling initiatives in the operating room.</p>","PeriodicalId":45220,"journal":{"name":"Urology Practice","volume":" ","pages":"101097UPJ0000000000000876"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000876","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Operating rooms produce significant waste that is disproportionate compared with other departments within health care systems. In this pilot study, we aim to quantify the recyclable and nonrecyclable waste generated by urologic procedures at our institution, as well as survey other urologists' recycling practices.

Methods: Data were collected from January 2022 to October 2024 for 5 urologic procedures: ureteral stent exchange, ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stone removal, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, and radical cystectomy. Weight was collected before start of case and at completion and categorized into 2 groups: nonrecyclable solid waste and combined recyclable material. Each procedure had weights collected in 3 separate cases. To survey other hospital's recycling, a nonvalidated 11-question survey on recycling practices was sent to urologists within the 8 AUA sections.

Results: The average total waste weight in kg (nonrecyclable solid waste/recyclable waste) included: stent exchange: 1.87/1.2, ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stone removal: 3.7/1.0, percutaneous nephrolithotomy: 6.5/1.65, robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: 11.3/2.97, and radical cystectomy: 11.69/2.67. We received 30 responses to our survey covering all 8 AUA sections. Fourteen of 34 (41.2%) academic hospitals had recycling in the OR vs 6 of 21 (28.6%) community hospitals; 38.8% felt knowledgeable of the items to recycle and 11.1% received proper training on recycling in the OR.

Conclusions: This pilot study highlights the waste generated in urology operating rooms, with a significant proportion that is recyclable. This presents an opportunity for intervention with recycling initiatives in the operating room.

少即是多:在泌尿外科手术中走向绿色。
导言:与医疗系统中的其他部门相比,手术室产生的浪费是不成比例的。在这项初步研究中,我们的目标是量化我院泌尿外科手术产生的可回收和不可回收废物,并调查其他泌尿科医生的回收做法。方法:收集2022年1月至2024年10月5项泌尿外科手术的数据:输尿管支架置换、输尿管镜和激光碎石取石(URS/LL)、经皮肾镜取石(PCNL)、机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(RALP)和膀胱根治性切除术(RC)。在案例开始之前和完成时收集重量,并将其分为两组:不可回收的固体废物和组合可回收材料。每个过程在三个独立的情况下收集权重。为了调查其他医院的回收情况,我们向美国泌尿外科协会8个科室的泌尿科医生发送了一份未经验证的11个问题的回收实践调查。结果:平均总废物重量kg(不可回收固体废物/可回收废物):支架置换:1.87/1.2,URS/LL: 3.7/1.0, PCNL: 6.5/1.65, RALP: 11.3, 2.97, RC: 11.69/2.67。我们收到了30份调查回复,涵盖了所有8个AUA部分。34所专科医院中有14所(41.2%)有手术室回收,而21所社区医院中有6所(28.6%)有手术室回收。38.8%的人认为了解回收物品,11.1%的人在手术室接受了适当的回收培训。结论:本初步研究突出了泌尿外科手术室产生的废弃物,其中可回收的废弃物占很大比例。这为手术室的回收活动提供了干预的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urology Practice
Urology Practice UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
163
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信