The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cataract surgery and environmental sustainability: Waste and lifecycle assessment of phacoemulsification at a private healthcare facility
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“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]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“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]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“and b) procurement of consumables, (27,34)”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [34]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 [34]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“and two (7,34) reported limited numerical data, with some sub-process results presented as descriptive or graphical data.”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [34]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This review found that the carbon footprint of a single operation ranged from 6 (for cataract surgery in India) (34) to 814 kg CO2e, (for a robotic hysterectomy in the US),( 7)”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [34]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Three studies performed scenario uncertainty tests to model the uncertainty due to methodological assumptions”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [34]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“two (31,34) finding this affected results minimally”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [34]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“whilst Thiel et al. estimated this to be 6kg CO2e in India.(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.
Citations
Cites
Managing the health effects of climate change
Costello, A., Abbas, M., Allen, A., Ball, S., Bell, S., Bellamy, R., Friel, S., Groce, N., Johnson, A., Kett, M., et al. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60935-1 · Cited by 3,102
Climate change and human health: present and future risks
McMichael, A. J., Woodruff, R. E., & Hales, S. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68079-3 · Cited by 2,585
Causes of vision loss worldwide, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis
Bourne, R., Stevens, G. A., White, R. A., Smith, J. L., Flaxman, S. R., Price, H., Jonas, J. B., Keeffe, J. E., Leasher, J. L., Naidoo, K. S., et al. (2013) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(13)70113-x · Cited by 1,882
Environmental impacts of the U.S. health care system and effects on public health
Eckelman, M. J., & Sherman, J. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157014 · Cited by 1,017
Overview and methodology: Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3
Weidema, B. P., Bauer, C., Hischier, R., Mutel, C., Nemecek, T., Reinhard, J., Vadenbo, C., & Wernet, G. (2013) · VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) · Cited by 734
Thiel, C. L., Eckelman, M., Guido, R., Huddleston, M., Landis, A. E., Sherman, J., Shrake, S. O., Copley-Woods, N., & Bilec, M. M. (2015) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es504719g · Cited by 416
Self-citationThe carbon footprint of cataract surgery
Morris, D. S., Wright, T., Somner, J. E. A., & Connor, A. (2013) · Eye · doi:10.1038/eye.2013.9 · Cited by 238
Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. ecoinvent report No. 3, v2.2
Hischier, R., Weidema, B. P., Althaus, H., Bauer, C., Doka, G., Dones, R., Frischknecht, R., Hellweg, S., Humbert, S., Jungbluth, N., et al. (2010) · Cited by 233
Current status of cataract blindness and Vision 2020: The right to sight initiative in India
Murthy, G., Gupta, S., John, N., & Vashist, P. (2008) · Indian Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.4103/0301-4738.42774 · Cited by 202
Cataract and “Vision 2020—the right to sight” initiative
Foster, A. (2001) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo.85.6.635 · Cited by 198
Haripriya, A., Chang, D. F., Reena, M., & Shekhar, M. (2012) · Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.04.025 · Cited by 186
Campion, N., Thiel, C. L., Woods, N. C., Swanzy, L., Landis, A. E., & Bilec, M. M. (2015) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.076 · Cited by 182
Self-citationDefensive Medicine, Cost Containment, and Reform
Hermer, L. D., & Brody, H. A. (2010) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1259-3 · Cited by 154
Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US
Campion, N., Thiel, C. L., DeBlois, J., Woods, N. C., Landis, A. E., & Bilec, M. M. (2012) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.006 · Cited by 144
Self-citationTackling climate change: the greatest opportunity for global health
Wang, H., & Horton, R. (2015) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60931-x · Cited by 126
Carbon footprint and cost–effectiveness of cataract surgery
Venkatesh, R., van Landingham, S. W., Khodifad, A. M., Haripriya, A., Thiel, C. L., Ramulu, P., & Robin, A. L. (2016) · Current Opinion in Ophthalmology · doi:10.1097/icu.0000000000000228 · Cited by 76
Self-citationTieszen, M., & Gruenberg, J. C. (1992) · PubMed · Cited by 67
A Sustainable Model For Delivering High-Quality, Efficient Cataract Surgery In Southern India
Le, H.-G., Ehrlich, J. R., Venkatesh, R., Aravind, S., Kolli, A., Haripriya, A., Ravindran, R. D., Thulasiraj, R. D., Robin, A. L., Hutton, D. W., et al. (2016) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0562 · Cited by 47
Self-citationVISION 2020: the right to sight. A global initiative for the elimination of avoidable blindness.
Stefano, A. F. D. (2001) · PubMed · Cited by 44
Cataract surgery and intraocular lens manufacturing in India
Aravind, S., Haripriya, A., & Taranum, B. S. S. (2007) · Current Opinion in Ophthalmology · doi:10.1097/icu.0b013e3282f2aaed · Cited by 38
Recycling plastics from the operating suite.
McGain, F., Clark, M., Williams, T., & Wardlaw, T. (2008) · PubMed · Cited by 32
Climate Change: Perspectives from IndiaPreprint
Narain, S., Ghosh, P., Nc, S., Parikh, J. K., & Soni, P. (2015) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 19
Tieszen, M. E., & Gruenberg, J. C. (1996) · Journal of Clinical Anesthesia · doi:10.1016/0952-8180(96)80521-6 · Cited by 10
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health: vision beyond 2020
Burton, M. J., Ramke, J., Marques, A. P., Bourne, R. R. A., Congdon, N., Jones, I., Ah Tong, B. A. M., Arunga, S., Bachani, D., Bascaran, C., et al. (2021) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30488-5 · Cited by 1,624
Self-citationEnvironmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care
McGain, F., Muret, J. C., Lawson, C., & Sherman, J. D. (2020) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1016/j.bja.2020.06.055 · Cited by 485
The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations
Rizan, C., Steinbach, I., Nicholson, R., Lillywhite, R., Reed, M., & Bhutta, M. F. (2020) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000003951 · Cited by 400
Cicinelli, M. V., Buchan, J. C., Nicholson, M., Varadaraj, V., & Khanna, R. (2022) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)01839-6 · Cited by 361
The green print: Advancement of environmental sustainability in healthcare
Sherman, J. D., Thiel, C., MacNeill, A., Eckelman, M. J., Dubrow, R., Hopf, H., Lagasse, R., Bialowitz, J., Costello, A., Forbes, M., et al. (2020) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104882 · Cited by 327
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
- Published
- 2017-11
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1391-1398
- ISSN
- 0146-2776 (ISSN-L)
- 0886-3350
- PMC
- PMC5728421
- 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
- FWCI
- 5.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- 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
