Comment on "A comparative analysis of the carbon footprint in minimally invasive colorectal surgery: laparoscopic versus robotic-the coloprint pilot study".

The Coloprint pilot study by Planellas et al. provides timely evidence on the carbon footprint of laparoscopic versus robotic colorectal surgery, bringing sustainability into surgical innovation. While important, its single-center design, small sample size, and narrow focus on intraoperative energy use limit generalizability. Comprehensive life-cycle assessments-including supply chain emissions from instruments, disposables, and platform maintenance-are needed to capture the true environmental burden. Future studies should integrate sustainability metrics with clinical outcomes such as complications and length of stay, adopt standardized carbon auditing frameworks, and involve multicenter collaborations. By expanding the scope and aligning with international sustainability benchmarks, research can ensure that robotic innovation advances both patient care and planetary health.