Cornea · 2024
Operating Room Waste Generated From Corneal and Conjunctival Surgeries.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Thakur Shambhawi, Sheppard John D, Eslani Medi, Pavilack Mark A, Philippy Brian, Ramanathan Gautam C, Cheung Albert Y
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to bring awareness to the surgical waste generated from corneal and conjunctival surgeries and to compare those findings with the waste generated from cataract surgeries.
METHODS: This was an observational prospective pilot cohort study at a tertiary corneal/anterior segment private practice. All waste related to cataract, cornea, and conjunctival surgical procedures (including anesthesia waste and corneal tissue storage) was weighed. The primary outcome was total waste generated while other outcomes included surgical setting (ambulatory surgical center, hospital, and minor operating room) and comparison of corneal/conjunctival surgeries with cataract surgery.
RESULTS: Surgical waste data were collected from 119 surgeries (82 corneal/conjunctival surgeries and 37 cataract surgeries). Hospital surgeries produced more waste than ambulatory surgical center and minor operating room surgeries. Penetrating keratoplasty (2.22 kg, P = 0.483) and Descemet stripping only (2.11 kg, P = 0.326) procedures generated comparable mean waste with cataract surgery (2.07 kg) while endothelial keratoplasties produced more ( P < 0.001, 0.002). (Deep) anterior lamellar keratoplasty results depended on the surgical setting. All conjunctival surgeries produced less waste than cataract surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with cataract surgery, keratoplasties overall produced comparable or more waste while conjunctival surgeries produced less waste. The surgical setting and type of anesthesia played a substantial role in the amount of waste generated. Assessing waste production from different ophthalmic surgeries may increase awareness of the negative environmental impact of surgical waste and promote practice or legal changes to improve environmental sustainability.
METHODS: This was an observational prospective pilot cohort study at a tertiary corneal/anterior segment private practice. All waste related to cataract, cornea, and conjunctival surgical procedures (including anesthesia waste and corneal tissue storage) was weighed. The primary outcome was total waste generated while other outcomes included surgical setting (ambulatory surgical center, hospital, and minor operating room) and comparison of corneal/conjunctival surgeries with cataract surgery.
RESULTS: Surgical waste data were collected from 119 surgeries (82 corneal/conjunctival surgeries and 37 cataract surgeries). Hospital surgeries produced more waste than ambulatory surgical center and minor operating room surgeries. Penetrating keratoplasty (2.22 kg, P = 0.483) and Descemet stripping only (2.11 kg, P = 0.326) procedures generated comparable mean waste with cataract surgery (2.07 kg) while endothelial keratoplasties produced more ( P < 0.001, 0.002). (Deep) anterior lamellar keratoplasty results depended on the surgical setting. All conjunctival surgeries produced less waste than cataract surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with cataract surgery, keratoplasties overall produced comparable or more waste while conjunctival surgeries produced less waste. The surgical setting and type of anesthesia played a substantial role in the amount of waste generated. Assessing waste production from different ophthalmic surgeries may increase awareness of the negative environmental impact of surgical waste and promote practice or legal changes to improve environmental sustainability.