Carbon footprint and cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery

被引:54
|
作者
Venkatesh, Rengaraj [1 ]
van Landingham, Suzanne W. [2 ]
Khodifad, Ashish M. [1 ]
Haripriya, Aravind [3 ]
Thiel, Cassandra L. [4 ]
Ramulu, Pradeep [2 ]
Robin, Alan L. [2 ,5 ,6 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Aravind Eye Hosp & Postgrad Inst Ophthalmol, Pondicherry, India
[2] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Wilmer Inst, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[3] Aravind Eye Hosp & Postgrad Inst Ophthalmol, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India
[4] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[5] Univ Michigan, Dept Ophthalmol & Visual Sci, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[6] Univ Maryland, Dept Ophthalmol, Baltimore, MD 21209 USA
[7] Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Int Hlth, Baltimore, MD USA
关键词
carbon footprint; cataract surgery; cost-effectiveness; manual small-incision cataract surgery; value-based medicine; EFFECTIVE PHACOEMULSIFICATION TIME; FEMTOSECOND LASER; EFFICACY; SAFETY; VOLUME;
D O I
10.1097/ICU.0000000000000228
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose of reviewThis article raises awareness about the cost-effectiveness and carbon footprint of various cataract surgery techniques, comparing their relative carbon emissions and expenses: manual small-incision cataract surgery (MSICS), phacoemulsification, and femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery.Recent findingsAs the most commonly performed surgical procedure worldwide, cataract surgery contributes significantly to global climate change. The carbon footprint of a single phacoemulsification cataract surgery is estimated to be comparable to that of a typical person's life for 1 week. Phacoemulsification has been estimated to be between 1.4 and 4.7 times more expensive than MSICS; however, given the lower degree of postoperative astigmatism and other potential complications, phacoemulsification may still be preferable to MSICS in relatively resource-rich settings requiring high levels of visual function. Limited data are currently available regarding the environmental and financial impact of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery; however, in its current form, it appears to be the least cost-effective option.SummaryCataract surgery has a high value to patients. The relative environmental impact and cost of different types of cataract surgery should be considered as this treatment becomes even more broadly available globally and as new technologies are developed and implemented.
引用
收藏
页码:82 / 88
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery
    Agarwal, Amar
    Kumar, Dhivya Ashok
    CURRENT OPINION IN OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2011, 22 (01) : 15 - 18
  • [2] Equity, access, and carbon cost-effectiveness of bilateral cataract surgery
    Ting, Darren S. J.
    Buchan, John C.
    LANCET, 2024, 403 (10424): : 353 - 354
  • [3] Cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery in Japan
    Hiratsuka Y.
    JAPANESE JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2011, 55 (04) : 333 - 342
  • [4] Global cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery
    Lansingh, Van C.
    Carter, Marissa J.
    Martens, Marion
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2007, 114 (09) : 1670 - 1678
  • [5] Cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery in Japan
    Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology, 2011, 55 : 333 - 342
  • [6] Incremental cost-effectiveness of initial cataract surgery
    Busbee, BG
    Brown, MM
    Brown, GC
    Sharma, S
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2002, 109 (03) : 606 - 612
  • [7] Cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery -: Method to assess cost-effectiveness using registry data
    Kobelt, G
    Lundström, M
    Stenevi, U
    JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2002, 28 (10): : 1742 - 1749
  • [8] Equity, access, and carbon cost-effectiveness of bilateral cataract surgery Authors' reply
    Spekreijse, Lindsay
    van den Biggelaar, Frank
    Nuijts, Rudy
    LANCET, 2024, 403 (10424): : 354 - 354
  • [9] Cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery in marginal patients.
    Naeim, A
    Keeler, E
    Mangione, C
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, 2004, 52 (04) : S9 - S9
  • [10] Incremental cost-effectiveness of initial cataract surgery - Discussion
    Beauchamp, GR
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2002, 109 (03) : 612 - 613