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
  • [41] The Polish Centre for Life Cycle Assessment—the centre for life cycle assessment in Poland
    Joanna Kulczycka
    Przemysław Kurczewski
    Jędrzej Kasprzak
    Anna Lewandowska
    Robert Lewicki
    Agata Witczak
    Joanna Witczak
    [J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2011, 16 : 442 - 444
  • [42] Study on Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Buildings: A Review
    Basu, Manali
    Kaja, Nagaraju
    Rao, Prashanti
    [J]. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series A, 2024, 105 (03) : 749 - 766
  • [43] Designed for life - first cost or life cycle
    Burrows, C
    [J]. NEW TRAINS, 2003, 2003 (06): : 19 - 26
  • [44] LIFE CYCLE COST MANAGEMENT
    Freiberg, Frantisek
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MODELLING AND SIMULATION 2010 IN PRAGUE (MS'10 PRAGUE), 2010, : 123 - 126
  • [45] Life Cycle Assessment of Representative Swiss Road Pavements for National Roads with an Accompanying Life Cycle Cost Analysis
    Gschoesser, Florian
    Wallbaum, Holger
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2013, 47 (15) : 8453 - 8461
  • [46] Life Cycle Cost Ecosystem
    Granada, Jorge
    [J]. 2018 ANNUAL RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY SYMPOSIUM (RAMS), 2018,
  • [47] LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT AND LIFE-CYCLE COST AS COLLABORATIVE TOOLS IN RESIDENTIAL HEATING SYSTEM SELECTION
    Glick, Scott
    Guggemos, Angela A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GREEN BUILDING, 2010, 5 (03): : 107 - 115
  • [48] LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT AND LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF A NEARLY ZERO ENERGY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING - A CASE STUDY
    Boros, Iosif
    Tanasa, Cristina
    Stoian, Valeriu
    Dan, Daniel
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 2017, 16 (03): : 695 - 704
  • [49] Life cycle assessment, life cycle cost, and exergoeconomic analysis of different tillage systems in safflower production by micronutrients
    Hatim, Mohammad
    Majidian, Majid
    Tahmasebi, Mona
    Nabavi-Pelesaraei, Ashkan
    [J]. SOIL & TILLAGE RESEARCH, 2023, 233
  • [50] Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis of recycled solid waste materials in highway pavement: A review
    Li, Jin
    Xiao, Feipeng
    Zhang, Lanfang
    Amirkhanian, Serji N.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2019, 233 : 1182 - 1206