Cited by 266Environmental Impact and SustainabilityHealthcare and Environmental Waste ManagementMedical Device Sterilization and Disinfection

Cataract surgery and environmental sustainability: waste and lifecycle assessment of phacoemulsification at a private healthcare facility

Open access
Thiel, Cassandra L., Schehlein, Emily, Ravilla, Thulasiraj, Ravindran, R. D., Robin, Alan L., Saeedi, Osamah J., Schuman, Joel S., Venkatesh, Rengaraj·2017·Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

Abstract

PURPOSE: To measure the waste generation and lifecycle environmental emissions from cataract surgery via phacoemulsification in a recognized resource-efficient setting. SETTING: Two tertiary care centers of the Aravind Eye Care System in southern India. DESIGN: Observational case series. METHODS: Manual waste audits, purchasing data, and interviews with Aravind staff were used in a hybrid environmental lifecycle assessment framework to quantify the environmental emissions associated with cataract surgery. Kilograms of solid waste generated and midpoint emissions in a variety of impact categories (eg, kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents). RESULTS: Aravind generates 250 grams of waste per phacoemulsification and nearly 6 kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalents in greenhouse gases. This is approximately 5% of the United Kingdom's phaco carbon footprint with comparable outcomes. A majority of Aravind's lifecycle environmental emissions occur in the sterilization process of reusable instruments because their surgical system uses largely reusable instruments and materials. Electricity use in the operating room and the Central Sterile Services Department (CSSD) accounts for 10% to 25% of most environmental emissions. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical systems in most developed countries and, in particular their use of materials, are unsustainable. Results show that ophthalmologists and other medical specialists can reduce material use and emissions in medical procedures using the system described here.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.08.017

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Four studies found procurement to be the largest hotspot.

    “By contrast, four studies (7,27,33,34) found procurement to be the largest hotspot”

    From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Results (Lifecycle Assessment Results; page not available in our copy) identify sterilization of reusable instruments—not procurement—as the dominant source of emissions in this study. The Discussion says procurement accounts for over 50% of the UK cataract-surgery carbon footprint, but distinguishes that comparison from the study’s Aravind findings. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Three studies specifically identified single-use items as the largest contributors, responsible for up to 78% of the carbon footprint, with two of these studies referring to the same dataset.

    “with three (7,33,34) specifically identifying single-use items to be largest contributors, responsible for up to 78% of the carbon footprint”

    From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Results (Lifecycle Assessment Results; page unavailable) identify reusable instruments and their sterilization—not single-use items—as responsible for more than half of emissions in most impact categories. Single-use materials contribute the largest share only to ozone depletion. The paper does not report that they account for up to 78% of the carbon footprint. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Five included studies used a hybrid approach using both EEIO and process-based methodologies; three termed this EIOLCA and one a component analysis study.

    “Five studies used a hybrid approach, using both EEIO and process-based methodologies, of which three termed this an 'economic-' or 'environment input-output life cycle assessment (EIOLCA)' (7,33,34) and one a 'component analysis study'.(27)”

    From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [34]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This review found that procurement of consumables is a major carbon hotspot within operating theatres.

    “and b) procurement of consumables, (27,34)”

    From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Discussion reports that procurement of supplies accounts for over 50% of the UK phacoemulsification carbon footprint, supporting its importance in that setting. But the Results identify sterilization of reusable instruments—not consumables—as the largest emissions source at the facility studied, so the paper does not establish procurement as a major carbon hotspot across operating theatres generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Allocation methods were explicitly stated by four included studies.

    “Allocation methods were explicitly stated by four studies.(7,31,33,34)”

    From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [34]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [7]Sustainable Development Unit Carbon Footprint Update for NHS in England 2012 Cambridge, UK Sustainable Development Unit 2013 Available at: http://www.sduhealth.org.uk/documents/carbon_footprint_summary_nhs_update_2013.pdf Accessed September 25, 2017

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thiel, C. L., Schehlein, E., Ravilla, T., Ravindran, R. D., Robin, A. L., Saeedi, O. J., Schuman, J. S., & Venkatesh, R.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Corresponding author
Thiel, Cassandra L.
Venue
Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
Published
2017-11
Volume
43
Issue
11
Pages
1391-1398
ISSN
  • 0146-2776 (ISSN-L)
  • 0886-3350
OpenAlex
W2772246762
Cited by
265
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 11 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (K23EY025014)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare and Environmental Waste Management
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Medical Device Sterilization and Disinfection
Keywords
cataract surgery, phacoemulsification, surgical waste, environmental sustainability, carbon footprint, greenhouse gas emissions, sterilization, reusable surgical instruments, resource efficiency
MeSH terms
Greenhouse Gases, Cataract, Cataract Extraction, United Kingdom, Humans, Lens, Crystalline, Ophthalmology, Phacoemulsification, Carbon Footprint

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