Cited by 129Environmental Impact and SustainabilityMinimally Invasive Surgical TechniquesGreen IT and Sustainability

Carbon footprint of robotically‐assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: a comparison

Woods, Demetrius L., McAndrew, Thomas, Nevadunsky, Nicole, Hou, June Y., Goldberg, Gary, Yi‐Shin Kuo, Dennis, Isani, Sara·2015·The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery

Abstract

Background To date there have been no comprehensive, comparative assessments of the environmental impact of surgical modalities. Our study seeks to quantify and compare the total greenhouse gas emissions, or 'carbon footprint', attributable to three surgical modalities. Methods A review of 150 staging procedures, employing laparotomy (LAP), conventional laparoscopy (LSC) or robotically-assisted laparoscopy (RA-LSC), was performed. The solid waste generated (kg) and energy consumed (kWh) during each case were quantified and converted into their equivalent mass of carbon dioxide (kg CO(2) e) release into the environment. The carbon footprint is the sum of the waste production and energy consumption during each surgery (kg CO(2) e). Results The total carbon footprint of a RA-LSC procedure is 40.3 kg CO(2) e/patient (p Conclusions Our results provide clinicians, administrators and policy-makers with knowledge of the environmental impact of their decisions to facilitate adoption of sustainable practices.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/rcs.1640

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A top-down EEIO was used exclusively by one included study but was referred to as a carbon footprint.

    “A 'top-down' EEIO was used exclusively by one study (35) but was referred to as a 'carbon footprint'.”

    From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [35]

  • Three included studies exclusively used bottom-up process-based approaches; one described their method as a carbon footprint, one as a multi-component analysis/carbon footprint, and one conducted full LCA.

    “Three studies exclusively used 'bottom-up' process-based approaches, of which one simply described their method as a 'carbon footprint',(35) one described it as a 'multi-component analysis/carbon footprint', (26) and the other conducted full LCA.(31)”

    From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [35]

  • The most carbon intensive approach to gynaecological surgery was robotic, followed by laparoscopic, followed by laparotomy (and trans-vaginal within the former study).

    “(35) found that the most carbon intensive approach to gynaecological surgery was robotic, followed by the laparoscopic approach, followed by laparotomy (followed by trans-vaginal approach within the former study).”

    From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [35]

  • Three studies found electricity to be the largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for 63-78% of the carbon footprint of whole operations.

    “Three studies (26,31,35) found electricity to be the largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for 63-78% of the carbon footprint of whole operations”

    From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [35]

  • Three included studies used primary process activity data only, one used secondary financial activity data only, and all others used a mixture of data types.

    “Three studies used primary process activity data only, (26,31,35) one used secondary financial activity data only (32) and all others used a mixture of data types (Supplementary Table 3).(7,27,33,34)”

    From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [35]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Woods, D. L., McAndrew, T., Nevadunsky, N., Hou, J. Y., Goldberg, G., Yi‐Shin Kuo, D., & Isani, S.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Women's Health Bronx NY USA
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Woods, Demetrius L.
Venue
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-02-22
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
406-412
ISSN
  • 1478-5951 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-596X
OpenAlex
W1511744004
Cited by
129
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Green IT and Sustainability
Keywords
carbon footprint, greenhouse gas emissions, conventional laparoscopy, laparotomy, surgical waste, environmental impact of surgery
MeSH terms
Carbon Dioxide, Laparotomy, Laparoscopes, Carbon Footprint, Robotic Surgical Procedures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review