微创手术的环境影响：两种医院护理途径的生命周期评估

IF 11.2 1区环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL

Resources Conservation and Recycling Pub Date : 2025-06-06 DOI:10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108441

Eva S. Cohen , Lisanne H.J.A. Kouwenberg , Hannah V. Dürager , Lynn E. Snijder , Jesse Lammerts , Martijn van Bodegraven , Dionne S. Kringos , Nicolaas H. Sperna Weiland , Wouter J.K. Hehenkamp

{"title":"微创手术的环境影响：两种医院护理途径的生命周期评估","authors":"Eva S. Cohen , Lisanne H.J.A. Kouwenberg , Hannah V. Dürager , Lynn E. Snijder , Jesse Lammerts , Martijn van Bodegraven , Dionne S. Kringos , Nicolaas H. Sperna Weiland , Wouter J.K. Hehenkamp","doi":"10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The healthcare sector significantly contributes to global environmental impacts, with minimally invasive procedures being particularly resource- and energy-intensive. This study at a Dutch tertiary hospital quantified the environmental impacts of two minimally invasive treatments in gynecology: total laparoscopic hysterectomy (surgical) and uterine artery embolization (non-surgical). Using comparative life cycle assessment, the study evaluated care pathways from outpatient appointments to follow-up, based on 40 waste inventories, considering material production, energy use, pharmaceutical production, sterilization, transport, waste disposal, and recycling. Hysterectomy generated 7.9 kg waste and 120 kg CO<sub>2</sub>-eq, while embolization produced 3.9 kg waste and 39 kg CO<sub>2</sub>-eq. Including hospitalization, total emissions were 215 kg CO<sub>2</sub>-eq for hysterectomy and 186 kg CO<sub>2</sub>-eq for embolization. Key environmental hotspots included patient and staff travel, electricity consumption for heating, ventilation and air conditioning, and single-use items. These findings highlight critical areas for reducing resource use and environmental impacts, advancing the transformation of healthcare systems toward more sustainable clinical practices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21153,"journal":{"name":"Resources Conservation and Recycling","volume":"222 ","pages":"Article 108441"},"PeriodicalIF":11.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Environmental impact of minimally invasive procedures: life cycle assessment of two hospital care pathways\",\"authors\":\"Eva S. Cohen , Lisanne H.J.A. Kouwenberg , Hannah V. Dürager , Lynn E. Snijder , Jesse Lammerts , Martijn van Bodegraven , Dionne S. Kringos , Nicolaas H. Sperna Weiland , Wouter J.K. Hehenkamp\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The healthcare sector significantly contributes to global environmental impacts, with minimally invasive procedures being particularly resource- and energy-intensive. This study at a Dutch tertiary hospital quantified the environmental impacts of two minimally invasive treatments in gynecology: total laparoscopic hysterectomy (surgical) and uterine artery embolization (non-surgical). Using comparative life cycle assessment, the study evaluated care pathways from outpatient appointments to follow-up, based on 40 waste inventories, considering material production, energy use, pharmaceutical production, sterilization, transport, waste disposal, and recycling. Hysterectomy generated 7.9 kg waste and 120 kg CO<sub>2</sub>-eq, while embolization produced 3.9 kg waste and 39 kg CO<sub>2</sub>-eq. Including hospitalization, total emissions were 215 kg CO<sub>2</sub>-eq for hysterectomy and 186 kg CO<sub>2</sub>-eq for embolization. Key environmental hotspots included patient and staff travel, electricity consumption for heating, ventilation and air conditioning, and single-use items. These findings highlight critical areas for reducing resource use and environmental impacts, advancing the transformation of healthcare systems toward more sustainable clinical practices.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21153,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resources Conservation and Recycling\",\"volume\":\"222 \",\"pages\":\"Article 108441\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resources Conservation and Recycling\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344925003192\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resources Conservation and Recycling","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344925003192","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

医疗保健行业对全球环境的影响很大，微创手术尤其需要消耗资源和能源。荷兰一家三级医院的这项研究量化了妇科两种微创治疗的环境影响：腹腔镜全子宫切除术（手术）和子宫动脉栓塞（非手术）。采用比较生命周期评估，该研究基于40份废物清单，考虑到材料生产、能源使用、药品生产、灭菌、运输、废物处理和回收，评估了从门诊预约到随访的护理途径。子宫切除术产生7.9 kg废物和120 kg二氧化碳当量，栓塞产生3.9 kg废物和39 kg二氧化碳当量。包括住院在内，子宫切除术总排放量为215 kg CO2-eq，栓塞术总排放量为186 kg CO2-eq。关键的环境热点包括病人和工作人员的旅行，供暖、通风和空调的电力消耗，以及一次性用品。这些发现突出了减少资源使用和环境影响的关键领域，推动了医疗保健系统向更可持续的临床实践的转变。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Environmental impact of minimally invasive procedures: life cycle assessment of two hospital care pathways

The healthcare sector significantly contributes to global environmental impacts, with minimally invasive procedures being particularly resource- and energy-intensive. This study at a Dutch tertiary hospital quantified the environmental impacts of two minimally invasive treatments in gynecology: total laparoscopic hysterectomy (surgical) and uterine artery embolization (non-surgical). Using comparative life cycle assessment, the study evaluated care pathways from outpatient appointments to follow-up, based on 40 waste inventories, considering material production, energy use, pharmaceutical production, sterilization, transport, waste disposal, and recycling. Hysterectomy generated 7.9 kg waste and 120 kg CO₂-eq, while embolization produced 3.9 kg waste and 39 kg CO₂-eq. Including hospitalization, total emissions were 215 kg CO₂-eq for hysterectomy and 186 kg CO₂-eq for embolization. Key environmental hotspots included patient and staff travel, electricity consumption for heating, ventilation and air conditioning, and single-use items. These findings highlight critical areas for reducing resource use and environmental impacts, advancing the transformation of healthcare systems toward more sustainable clinical practices.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Resources Conservation and Recycling 环境科学-工程：环境

CiteScore

22.90

自引率

6.10%

发文量

625

审稿时长

23 days

期刊介绍： The journal Resources, Conservation & Recycling welcomes contributions from research, which consider sustainable management and conservation of resources. The journal prioritizes understanding the transformation processes crucial for transitioning toward more sustainable production and consumption systems. It highlights technological, economic, institutional, and policy aspects related to specific resource management practices such as conservation, recycling, and resource substitution, as well as broader strategies like improving resource productivity and restructuring production and consumption patterns. Contributions may address regional, national, or international scales and can range from individual resources or technologies to entire sectors or systems. Authors are encouraged to explore scientific and methodological issues alongside practical, environmental, and economic implications. However, manuscripts focusing solely on laboratory experiments without discussing their broader implications will not be considered for publication in the journal.