Cited by 420Environmental Impact and SustainabilityHealthcare Facilities Design and SustainabilityHealthcare and Environmental Waste Management

Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States

Open access
Thiel, Cassandra L., Eckelman, Matthew, Guido, Richard, Huddleston, Matthew, Landis, Amy E., Sherman, Jodi, Shrake, Scott O., Copley-Woods, Noe +1 more·2015·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

The healthcare sector is a driver of economic growth in the U.S., with spending on healthcare in 2012 reaching $2.8 trillion, or 17% of the U.S. gross domestic product, but it is also a significant source of emissions that adversely impact environmental and public health. The current state of the healthcare industry offers significant opportunities for environmental efficiency improvements, potentially leading to reductions in costs, resource use, and waste without compromising patient care. However, limited research exists that can provide quantitative, sustainable solutions. The operating room is the most resource-intensive area of a hospital, and surgery is therefore an important focal point to understand healthcare-related emissions. Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to quantify environmental emissions from four different surgical approaches (abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic, and robotic) used in the second most common major procedure for women in the U.S., the hysterectomy. Data were collected from 62 cases of hysterectomy. Life cycle assessment results show that major sources of environmental emissions include the production of disposable materials and single-use surgical devices, energy used for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, and anesthetic gases. By scientifically evaluating emissions, the healthcare industry can strategically optimize its transition to a more sustainable system.

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 · 10.1021/es504719g

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • One study did not state either assumptions or exclusions.

    “and one(7) did not state either.”

    From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Experimental Methods specify the study’s system boundaries, from when the patient enters the operating room until she leaves. The Monte Carlo Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty section also explicitly states an exclusion: recycling impacts were omitted from that analysis and added to the post-analysis results. The claim that the paper stated neither assumptions nor exclusions is therefore contrary to our copy (page numbers unavailable). (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 [7]

    The Discussion (Impacts in the Supply Chain: Packaging and Purchasing; page unavailable) says single-use materials and tools accounted for a majority of environmental impacts in nearly every category. It does not give a 78% share of the carbon footprint; the Results (Life Cycle Impacts of Hysterectomy; page unavailable) instead say anesthetic gases contributed about two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions for abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies. This paper also does not establish that two of the three cited studies used the same dataset. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Hysterectomies in the USA generate 212,000 tonnes CO2e per year (~285-562 kg CO2e per operation).

    “concluding that hysterectomies in the USA generate 212,000 tonnes CO2e per year (~285-562 kg CO2e per operation) (7)”

    From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) estimates about 212,000 metric tons of CO2-eq per year for U.S. hysterectomies, projected from 500,000 annual cases. The Results discuss emissions per case and variation by surgical approach, but the passages in our copy do not substantiate the stated range of approximately 285–562 kg CO2e per operation. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In two studies where electricity use was broken down, the highest consumption of electricity was for maintaining the theatre environment (heating, ventilation and air-conditioning).

    “In two studies where electricity use was broken down, the highest consumption of electricity was for maintaining the theatre environment (heating, ventilation and air-conditioning).(7,31)”

    From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Results section (Life Cycle Impacts of Hysterectomy; page unavailable) says operating-room HVAC caused over 70% of energy impacts, more than the reported contribution from electricity for operating-room machines. That supports HVAC as the leading energy-related contributor in this study, but the passage measures environmental impacts rather than directly reporting that HVAC consumed the most electricity. The other study cited in the sentence is outside this verdict. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This review found that the carbon footprint of a single operation ranged from 6 kg CO2e for cataract surgery in India to 814 kg CO2e for a robotic hysterectomy in the US.

    “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 [7]

    The Results (Life Cycle Impacts of Hysterectomy; page unavailable) report that robotic hysterectomy had the largest average environmental footprint among the hysterectomy types studied in the US. Our copy does not state the cited figure of 814 kg CO2e per operation. The cataract-surgery figure is attached to a different citation and is not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thiel, C. L., Eckelman, M., Guido, R., Huddleston, M., Landis, A. E., Sherman, J., Shrake, S. O., Copley-Woods, N., & Bilec, M. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, , , 300 Halket Street , , ,
Corresponding author
Thiel, Cassandra L.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2014-12-17
Volume
49
Issue
3
Pages
1779-1786
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2312914809
Cited by
416
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4
FWCI
5.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Center for Research Resources (ULI RR024153)
  • Office of Integrative Activities (050434)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Healthcare Facilities Design and Sustainability
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare and Environmental Waste Management
Keywords
hysterectomy, environmental impact of healthcare, disposable medical supplies, inhalational anesthetics, laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, vaginal hysterectomy, abdominal hysterectomy, health system sustainability, life cycle assessment
MeSH terms
Environment, Female, Humans, Hysterectomy, United States

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