"Water or not water: That is the question." Analysis of costs and consumption of the operating theaters in a greener perspective.
alcohol hand rub
antiseptic agents
healthcare waste
operating theaters
plastic waste
surgical hand antisepsis
water use
Journal
International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
ISSN: 1879-3479
Titre abrégé: Int J Gynaecol Obstet
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0210174
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Jan 2024
11 Jan 2024
Historique:
revised:
30
11
2023
received:
18
05
2023
accepted:
11
12
2023
medline:
11
1
2024
pubmed:
11
1
2024
entrez:
11
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To compare the amounts of water and plastic used in surgical hand washing with medicated soaps and with alcohol-based products and to compare costs and consumption in a year, based on scheduled surgical activity. This retrospective study was carried out at Udine's Gynecology Operating Block from October to November 2022. We estimated the average amount of water with a graduated cylinder and the total cost of water usage based on euros/m The daily amount of water using povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine-gluconate and alcohol-based antiseptic agents was 187.6, 140.7 and 0 L/day (P value = 0.001), respectively; A total of 69 000 L/year of water would be saved if alcohol-based products were routinely used. A single unit of an alcohol-based product allows three times as many handscrubs as any other product (P value = 0.001) with consequent reduction in plastic packaging. Despite the cost saving being negligible, choosing alcohol-based handrub over medicated soap handrub - on equal antiseptic efficacy grounds - could lead to a significant saving of water and plastic, thus making our operating theaters more environmentally friendly.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Références
Environmental footprint methods. Accessed August 5, 2023. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/environmental-footprint-methods-2021-12-16_en
Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Sci Adv. 2016;2(2):e1500323.
Martin. Water and Sanitation. United Nations Sustainable Development. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation
EU efforts on the global water agenda - Beyond UN 2023 Water Conference. 2023. Accessed August 5, 2023. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/water/eu-efforts-global-water-agenda-beyond-un-2023-water-conference_en
Water, sanitation, hygiene, and waste management for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Accessed August 6, 2023. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/WHO-2019-nCoV-IPC-WASH-2020.4
World Health Organization, WHO Patient Safety. WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in health care 2009;(WHO/IER/PSP/2009/01):262.
Ho YH, Wang YC, Loh EW, Tam KW. Antiseptic efficacies of waterless hand rub, chlorhexidine scrub, and povidone-iodine scrub in surgical settings: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Hosp Infect. 2019;101(4):370-379.
Tanner J, Dumville JC, Norman G, Fortnam M. Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Wounds Group. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016(1):CD004288. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004288.pub3
Potgieter MSW, Faisal A, Ikram A, Burger M. Water-wise hand preparation - the true impact of our practice: a controlled before-and-after study. S Afr Med J. 2020;110(4):291.
Jehle K, Jarrett N, Matthews S. Clean and green: saving water in the operating theatre. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008;90(1):22-24.
World Health Organization. Global Guidelines for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection. World Health Organization; 2016:184. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/250680
Parienti JJ, Thibon P, Heller R, et al. Hand-rubbing with an aqueous alcoholic solution vs traditional surgical hand-scrubbing and 30-day surgical site infection rates: a randomized equivalence study. JAMA. 2002;288(6):722-727.
Lopes AER, Menegueti MG, Gaspar GG, et al. Comparing surgeons' skin tolerance and acceptability to alcohol-based surgical hand preparation vs traditional surgical scrub: a matched quasi-experimental study. Am J Infect Control. 2022;50(10):1091-1097. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2022.01.028
Rizan C, Mortimer F, Stancliffe R, Bhutta MF. Plastics in healthcare: time for a re-evaluation. J R Soc Med. 2020;113(2):49-53.
Adisa A, Bahrami-Hessari M, Bhangu A, et al. Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries. Br J Surg. 2023;110(7):804-817.
Liu LQ, Mehigan S. The effects of surgical hand scrubbing protocols on skin integrity and surgical site infection rates: a systematic review. AORN J. 2016;103(5):468-482. doi:10.1016/j.aorn.2016.03.003
Voudrias EA. Healthcare waste management from the point of view of circular economy. Waste Manag. 2018;75:1-2. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.020
Kwakye G. Green surgical practices for health care. Arch Surg. 2011;146(2):131. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2010.343
Heiman AJ, Camargo L, Bhat D, et al. Curtailing unnecessary waste among operating room personnel: evaluating the cost awareness of commonly used surgical items. Am Surg. 2021;88(6):1263-1268. doi:10.1177/0003134821995079
Chasseigne V, Leguelinel-Blache G, Nguyen TL, et al. Assessing the costs of disposable and reusable supplies wasted during surgeries. Int J Surg. 2018;53:18-23. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.02.004