Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost of repairing surgical scissors

被引:8
|
作者
Rizan, Chantelle [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Brophy, Tom [4 ]
Lillywhite, Robert [5 ]
Reed, Malcom [2 ]
Bhutta, Mahmood F. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Sussex NHS Fdn Trust, ENT Dept, Brighton BN2 5BE, E Sussex, England
[2] Brighton & Sussex Med Sch, Brighton BN1 9PX, E Sussex, England
[3] Royal Coll Surgeons England, 38-43 Lincolns Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, England
[4] Barts Hlth NHS Trust, Royal London Hosp, Whitechapel Rd, London E1 1FR, England
[5] Univ Warwick, Sch Life Sci, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry CV4 7AL, W Midlands, England
来源
关键词
Repair; Surgical scissors; Surgical instruments; Life cycle assessment; Carbon footprint; Life cycle cost; CARBON FOOTPRINT; ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT; HEALTH;
D O I
10.1007/s11367-022-02064-7
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Purpose The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the environmental impact and financial cost of repairing surgical scissors. Methods We used life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost analysis to estimate environmental impacts and financial cost of repairing surgical scissors. The functional unit was one use of a reusable surgical scissor (manufactured in Germany and used in the UK), and three baseline scenarios were compared: no repair, onsite (hospital), and offsite (external contract) repair. This 'cradle-to-grave' analysis included raw material extraction, manufacture of scissors and materials within primary and secondary packaging, transportation, decontamination, repair (where relevant), and waste disposal. Primary activity data was sourced from the instrument manufacturer, supplier, and from UK repair centres (both onsite and offsite), whilst the Ecoinvent database was used as a secondary data source for the manufacture of scissors. The World ReCiPe Midpoint and Endpoint Hierarchist method (Version 1.1) was used for environmental impact assessment. Scenario analysis was used to evaluate the impact of altering different assumptions, including number of uses, reducing number of repairs, increasing distance to offsite repair centre, and alternative electricity sources and waste handling processes. Life cycle cost analysis was calculated based on purchase cost, and cost of decontamination, repair, and waste disposal. Results and discussion The carbon footprint of reusable scissors was 70 g CO 2 e per use, assuming scissors were used 40 times before replacement. This was reduced by 19% through use of offsite repair every 40 uses (57 g CO 2 e/scissor use), with small additional reductions associated with onsite repair (56 g CO 2 e/scissor use). Similar patterns of reduction were calculated for eighteen midpoint environmental impact categories (mean impact reduction of 30% for those repaired offsite relative to no repair) and also across three endpoint categories. Decontamination made the biggest contribution to the carbon footprint across all baseline scenarios (76% where no repair, 95-97% where repaired offsite and onsite respectively). Findings were robust to alternative scenario analyses. Life cycle cost was GBP 1.43 pound per use of reusable scissors, and when repaired either on- or offsite this decreased by 32% to GBP 0.97 pound per use. Conclusion Repairing surgical scissors rather than replacing them with a new pair can reduce environmental and financial cost. The extent to which repair may play a role in mitigating the environmental impact of other surgical instruments requires further research.
引用
收藏
页码:780 / 795
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] An evaluation of railway passenger transport in Turkey using life cycle assessment and life cycle cost methods
    Banar, Mufide
    Ozdemir, Alp
    [J]. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT, 2015, 41 : 88 - 105
  • [32] Integration of life cycle assessment and life cycle cost using building information modeling: A critical review
    Lu, Kun
    Jiang, Xiaoyan
    Yu, Jingyu
    Tam, Vivian W. Y.
    Skitmore, Martin
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2021, 285
  • [33] Integrating life cycle costing and life cycle assessment using extended material flow cost accounting
    Bierer, Annett
    Goetze, Uwe
    Meynerts, Lilly
    Sygulla, Ronny
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2015, 108 : 1289 - 1301
  • [34] Life-cycle assessment and life-cycle cost assessment of lithium-ion batteries for passenger ferry
    Guven, Denizhan
    Kayalica, M. Ozgur
    [J]. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT, 2023, 115
  • [35] Innovation in bridge life-cycle cost assessment
    Macek, Daniel
    Snizek, Vaclav
    [J]. CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE 2017, CCC 2017, 2017, 196 : 441 - 446
  • [36] A Life Cycle Assessment of Reusable and Disposable Surgical Caps
    Donahue, Laura M.
    Petit, Hayley J.
    Thiel, Cassandra L.
    Sullivan, Gwyneth A.
    Gulack, Brian C.
    Shah, Ami N.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2024, 299 : 112 - 119
  • [37] Life cycle assessment
    Duda, M
    Shaw, JS
    [J]. SOCIETY, 1997, 35 (01) : 38 - 43
  • [38] Life cycle assessment
    Mark Duda
    Jane S. Shaw
    [J]. Society, 1997, 35 : 38 - 43
  • [39] Life cycle assessment "Life cycle net hemp products"
    Patyk, A
    Reinhardt, GA
    [J]. BIOMASS FOR ENERGY AND INDUSTRY, 1998, : 101 - 104
  • [40] Life Cycle Perspective and Life Cycle Assessment for Recycled Glass
    Li Chunfa
    Wang Caifeng
    Li Han
    [J]. 2007 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, NETWORKING AND MOBILE COMPUTING, VOLS 1-15, 2007, : 5041 - 5044