Aims. This study aimed to assess the carbon
Aims. In the UK, the NHS generates an estimated 25 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (4% to 5% of the nation’s total carbon emissions) and produces over 500,000 tonnes of waste annually. There is limited evidence demonstrating the principles of sustainability and its benefits within orthopaedic surgery. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery and the environmentally sustainable initiatives undertaken to address this. The secondary aim of this study was to describe the barriers to making sustainable changes within orthopaedic surgery. Methods. A literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines through EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed libraries using two domains of terms: “orthopaedic surgery” and “environmental sustainability”. Results. A total of 13 studies were included in the final analysis. All papers studied the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery in one of three areas: waste management, resource consumption, and carbon emissions. Waste segregation was a prevalent issue and described by nine studies, with up to 74.4% of hazardous waste being generated. Of this, six studies reported recycling waste and up to 43.9% of waste per procedure was recyclable. Large joint arthroplasties generated the highest amount of recyclable waste per procedure. Three studies investigated carbon emissions from intraoperative consumables, sterilization methods, and through the use of telemedicine. One study investigated water wastage and demonstrated that simple changes to practice can reduce water consumption by up to 63%. The two most common barriers to implementing environmentally sustainable changes identified across the studies was a lack of appropriate infrastructure and lack of education and training. Conclusion. Environmental sustainability in orthopaedic surgery is a growing area with a wide potential for meaningful change. Further research to cumulatively study the carbon
Aims. Body exhaust suits or surgical helmet systems (colloquially, ‘space suits’) are frequently used in many forms of arthroplasty, with the aim of providing personal protection to surgeons and, perhaps, reducing periprosthetic joint infections, although this has not consistently been borne out in systematic reviews and registry studies. To date, no large-scale study has investigated whether this is applicable to shoulder arthroplasty. We used the New Zealand Joint Registry to assess whether the use of surgical helmet systems was associated with lower all-cause revision or revision for deep infection in primary shoulder arthroplasties. Methods. We analyzed 16,000 shoulder arthroplasties (hemiarthroplasties, anatomical, and reverse geometry prostheses) recorded on the New Zealand Joint Registry from its inception in 2000 to the present day. We assessed patient factors including age, BMI, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, as well as whether or not the operation took place in a laminar flow operating theatre. Results. A total of 2,728 operations (17%) took place using surgical helmet systems. Patient cohorts were broadly similar in terms of indication for surgery (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fractures) and medical comorbidities (age and sex). There were 842 revisions (5% of cases) with just 98 for deep infection (0.6% of all cases or 11.6% of the revisions). There were no differences in all-cause revisions or revision for deep infection between the surgical helmet systems and conventional gowns (p = 0.893 and p = 0.911, respectively). Conclusion. We found no evidence that wearing a surgical helmet system reduces the incidence of periprosthetic joint infection in any kind of primary shoulder arthroplasty. We acknowledge the limitations of this registry study and accept that there may be other benefits in terms of personal protection, comfort, or visibility. However, given their financial and ecological
Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has proven higher accuracy, fewer alignment outliers, and improved short-term clinical outcomes when compared to conventional TKA. However, evidence of cost-effectiveness and individual superiority of one system over another is the subject of further research. Despite its growing adoption rate, published results are still limited and comparative studies are scarce. This review compares characteristics and performance of five currently available systems, focusing on the information and feedback each system provides to the surgeon, what the systems allow the surgeon to modify during the operation, and how each system then aids execution of the surgical plan. Cite this article: Abstract
