Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/30758
Title: Sustainability in Reconstructive Breast Surgery: An Eco-audit of the Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Pathway
Authors: Ahmed, Z
Zargaran, A
Zargaran, D
Sousi, S
Hakimnia, K
Glynou, SP
Davies, J
Hamilton, S
Mosahebi, A
Issue Date: 26-Dec-2024
Publisher: Wolters Kluwer Health on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons
Citation: Ahmed, Z. et al. (2024) 'Sustainability in Reconstructive Breast Surgery: An Eco-audit of the Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Pathway', Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open, 12 (12), e6374, pp. 1 - 9. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000006374.
Abstract: Background: The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap provides an effective and popular means for autologous breast reconstruction. However, with the complexity of the pathway, the environmental impact of the pathway has yet to be evaluated. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 42 unilateral DIEPs at a single reconstructive center was performed. Process mapping and life-cycle analyses were performed for equipment, staff, patients, and land. A bottom-up approach was adopted to calculate carbon dioxide equivalent estimates for the initial consultation, preoperative, intraoperative, and immediate postoperative periods. Results: This study estimated the carbon footprint of a patient undergoing DIEP flap surgery to be approximately 233.96 kg CO2eq. Induction, maintenance, and running of anesthesia had the highest overall contribution to the carbon footprint (158.17 kg CO2eq, 67.60% overall). Patient and staff travel contributed more than 15% overall carbon emissions in this study. The impact of sterilization was less than half of that from waste management (0.81 versus 1.81 kg CO2eq, respectively). Waste management alone contributed 4.21 kg CO2eq of the overall carbon emissions, the majority of which was accountable to the incineration of 14.75 kg of noninfectious offensive waste. Conclusions: This study estimates the carbon footprint of the DIEP pathway. Strategies to mitigate the impact of carbon emissions including usage of reusable vs single-use equipment, virtual consultations, standardization of equipment packs, and optimizing waste disposal were suggested areas for improvement. Data from manufacturers on life-cycle assessments were limited, and further work is needed to fully understand and optimize the impact of DIEP surgery on the environment.
Description: Takeaways: Question: What is the carbon footprint of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap surgery and where are emissions attributed to? Findings: The estimated carbon footprint of DIEP flap surgery was 233.24 kg CO2eq. Anesthesia had the highest contribution, and patient and staff travel contributed more than 15% carbon emissions in this study. The impact of sterilization was less than half of that from waste management. Meaning: This is the first study to estimate the carbon footprint of the DIEP pathway. Suggested strategies to mitigate carbon emissions were usage of reusable versus single-use equipment, virtual consultations, standardization of equipment packs, and optimization of waste disposal.
Supplemental Digital Content are available online at: https://links.lww.com/PRSGO/D688 [PDF] (323 KB).
URI: https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/30758
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000006374
Other Identifiers: ORCiD: Julie Davies https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6875-3100
Appears in Collections:Brunel Business School Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdfCopyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery-Global Open 12(12):p e6374, December 2024. | DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000006374986.74 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons