medigraphic.com
ISSN 2594-1518 (Electronic)
ISSN 1405-0099 (Print)

2025, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Cir Gen 2025; 47 (3)

Sustainability in mexican operating rooms: recommendations from the Mexican Association of General Surgery

Torres-Ruiz MF, Aguirre-Olmedo I, Escamilla-Ortiz AC, Lamothe-Ale G, Méndez-Villanueva MT, Ayala-Rabadán J, Gómez-Herrera MN, Reyes-García MA, Sánchez-Cano DX, Baridó-Munguía E

Language: Spanish
References: 128
Page: 145-165
PDF size: 462.16 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: the environmental impact of operating rooms arises from multiple sources: the use of anesthetic gases, excessive oxygen supplementation, inefficient energy and water consumption, high use of disposable materials, medication waste, and significant waste generation. Adopting sustainable practices in operating rooms is a priority to reduce the environmental footprint without compromising clinical outcomes or patient safety. This article presents the recommendations developed by the Eco-Surgery Committee of the Mexican Association of General Surgery to implement sustainability in Mexican operating rooms. Material and methods: each committee member reviewed international scientific literature and selected strategies with strong methodological support and feasibility for implementation in the national context. Results: a total of 21 recommendations were established and grouped into five categories: anesthesia, preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative, and implementation and transition. These include the selection of anesthetic techniques with lower environmental impact and the optimization of surgical supplies, energy, and resources. Conclusion: these measures not only benefit the environment but also help to reduce costs and improve operational efficiency. At the Mexican Association of General Surgery, we believe that with sustained commitment and a shared vision, operating rooms can be transformed into spaces that, in addition to saving lives, also protect our planet.


REFERENCES

  1. Ryan SM, Nielsen CJ. Global warming potential of inhaled anesthetics: application to clinical use. Anesth Analg. 2010; 111 (1): 92-98.

  2. Bambarén C, Chú M. Impacto ambiental del uso del gas anestésico inhalatorio sevoflurano en un hospital de Perú. Rev Médica Hered. 2018; 29 (3): 147.

  3. Brooks P, Absalom AR. When will we call time on desflurane? Comment on Br J Anaesth. 2022; 129: e79-e81. Br J Anaesth. 2022; 129 (4): e81-82.

  4. Gordon D. Sustainability in the operating room. Anesthesiol Clin. 2020; 38 (3): 679-692.

  5. Thiel CL, Woods NC, Bilec MM. Strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from laparoscopic surgery. Am J Public Health. 2018; 108 (S2): S158-164.

  6. Martínez RA, Maroño BMJ, Guereca GA, Escontrela RBA, Bergese SD. Emisiones Zero. Una responsabilidad compartida. Proyecto captura de gases y reciclado en el Hospital Universitario de Cruces. Rev Esp Salud Pública. 2023; 97 (e202301001).

  7. Portela-Ortiz JM, Hernández-Cortés C, Delgadillo-Arauz C. Flujos bajos en anestesia. 2015; 38 (1): S352-355.

  8. Samad K, Yousuf MS, Ullah H, Ahmed SS, Siddiqui KM, Latif A. Anesthesia and its environmental impact: approaches to minimize exposure to anesthetic gases and reduce waste. Med Gas Res. 2025; 15 (1): 101-109.

  9. Collins J, Karim M, Akcay B, Palaniappa N, Wong J. Implementing a clinical decision support tool to reduce operating room anesthetic fresh gas flow: a resident-led, sustainability-focused quality improvement initiative. J Grad Med Educ. 2024; 16 (6s): 140-144.

  10. Dölker T, Schuler J, Wallqvist J, Rossaint R, Kowark A, Ziemann S, et al. Easy-to-implement educational interventions to bring climate-smart actions to daily anesthesiologic practice: a cross-sectional before and after study. Minerva Anestesiol. 2024; 90 (3): 126-134. Available in: https://www.minervamedica.it/index2.php?show=R02Y2024N03A0126

  11. Müller-Wirtz LM, Volk T, Meiser A. Towards sustainability of volatile anaesthetics: capture and beyond. Br J Anaesth. 2024; 133 (6): 1363-1366.

  12. Kampman JM, Van Bree EM, Gielen L, Sperna Weiland NH. A nationwide approach to reduction in anaesthetic gas use: the Dutch Approach to tanfordyng anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2025; 134 (4): 1146-1152.

  13. Parilli-Johnson C, Pitman JS, Barbee K, Flowe A, Hooge N, Thompson JA, et al. Implementation of a power down initiative in 34 operating rooms. AANA J. 2024; 92 (4): 257-268.

  14. Parvatker AG, Tunceroglu H, Sherman JD, Coish P, Anastas P, Zimmerman JB, et al. Cradle-to-gate greenhouse gas emissions for twenty anesthetic active pharmaceutical ingredients based on process scale-up and process design calculations. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2019; 7 (7): 6580-6591.

  15. Lane SF. The environmental sustainability of propofol use in daily practice. Br J Anaesth. 2020; 124 (6): e221-222.

  16. Mankes RF. Propofol wastage in anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2012; 114 (5): 1091-1092.

  17. McGain F, Muret J, Lawson C, Sherman JD. Environmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care. Br J Anaesth. 2020; 125 (5): 680-692.

  18. McGain F, McAlister S, McGavin A, Story D. A Life cycle assessment of reusable and single-use central venous catheter insertion kits. Anesth Analg. 2012; 114 (5): 1073-1080.

  19. Overcash MR, Sehulster LM. Estimated incidence rate of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) linked to laundered reusable healthcare textiles (HCTs) in the United States and United Kingdom over a 50-year period: Do the data support the efficacy of approved laundry practices? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2022; 43 (10): 1510-1512.

  20. McQuerry M, Easter E, Cao A. Disposable versus reusable medical gowns: a performance comparison. Am J Infect Control. 2021; 49 (5): 563-570.

  21. Vozzola E, Overcash M, Griffing E. Environmental considerations in the selection of isolation gowns: a life cycle assessment of reusable and disposable alternatives. Am J Infect Control. 2018; 46 (8): 881-886.

  22. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Reusable Surgical Gowns Position Statement [Internet]. 2023. Available in: https://www.surgeons.org/-/media/Project/RACS/surgeons-org/ESSPWP/2023-11-08_Reusable-Gowns-Position-Statement_Final.pdf

  23. Health Care Without Harm. Measuring and reducing plastics in the healthcare sector [Internet]. [Cited 2025 Jun 6]. Available in: https://europe.noharm.org/sites/default/files/documents-files/6886/2021-09-23-measuring-and-reducing-plastics-in-the-healthcare-sector.pdf

  24. Nix Maria. The University of Maryland Medical Center: Reusable Textiles in the OR [Internet]. Greening the OR; [Cited 2025 Jun 6]. Available in: https://practicegreenhealth.org/sites/default/files/upload-files/casestudy_uofmd_r7_web.pdf

  25. Burguburu A, Tanné C, Bosc K, Laplaud J, Roth M, Czyrnek-Deletre M. Comparative life cycle assessment of reusable and disposable scrub suits used in hospital operating rooms. Clean Environ Syst. 2022; 4: 100068.

  26. Chang JH, Woo KP, Silva De Souza LCN, Bilec MM, Camhi M, Melnyk AI, et al. Does reusable mean green? Comparison of the environmental impact of reusable operating room bed covers and lift sheets versus single-use. Surgeon. 2024; 22 (4): 236-241.

  27. Bellchambers J. A prospective study of wound infection in coronary artery surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999; 15 (1): 45-50.

  28. Malhotra GK, Tran T, Stewart C, Battey H, Tegtmeier B, McNeese K, et al. Pandemic operating room supply shortage and surgical site infection: considerations as we emerge from the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. J Am Coll Surg. 2022; 234 (4): 571-578.

  29. Gumera A, Mil M, Hains L, Fanshaw SR, Dunne B. Reusable surgical headwear has a reduced carbon footprint and matches disposables regarding surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect. 2024; 152: 164-172.

  30. Cohen ES, Djufri S, Bons S, Knoppert MikeR, Hehenkamp WJK, Kouwenberg LHJA, et al. Environmental impact assessment of reusable and disposable surgical head covers. JAMA Surg. 2023; 158 (11): 1216-1217.

  31. Jones M, Jakeways M. Theatre nursing. Over-estimating overshoes. Nurs Times. 1988; 84 (41): 66-71.

  32. Summers PR, Biswas MK, Portera SG, Moore L. Blood-saturated operating-room shoe covers. West J Med. 1992; 157 (2): 184-185.

  33. Weightman NC, Banfield KR. Protective over-shoes are unnecessary in a Day Surgery Unit. J Hosp Infect. 1994; 28 (1): 1-3.

  34. Humphreys H, Marshall RJ, Ricketts VE, Russell AJ, Reeves DS. Theatre over-shoes do not reduce operating theatre floor bacterial counts. J Hosp Infect. 1991; 17 (2): 117-123.

  35. Gupta A, Anand A, Chumber S, Sashindran V, Patrikar S. Impact of Protective Footwear on Floor and Air Contamination of Intensive Care Units. Med J Armed Forces India. 2007; 63 (4): 334-336.

  36. Tateiwa T, Masaoka T, Ishida T, Shishido T, Takahashi Y, Yamamoto K. Impact of surgical clothing and footwear on operating room contamination during standstill and intraoperative stepping motion. J Orthop Surg. 2020; 28 (3): 2309499020976232.

  37. Healthcare Plastics Recycling Council. Healthcare plastics: guidance for recyclers [Internet]. 2019. Available in: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/49d7a0_46a9a9caee44404e82fd70ff964eee32.pdf

  38. Deo, Anuja. MetroWest Medical Center, Natick & Framingham, MA: Rgid Sterilization Containers for Surgical Instrumentation [Internet]. 2011. Available in: https://practicegreenhealth.org/sites/default/files/upload-files/casestudy_metrowest_r6_web_1.pdf

  39. Suchomel M, Rotter M. Ethanol in pre-surgical hand rubs: concentration and duration of application for achieving European Norm EN 12791. J Hosp Infect. 2011; 77 (3): 263-266.

  40. Moszkowicz D, Hobeika C, Collard M, Bruzzi M, Beghdadi N, Catry J, et al. Operating room hygiene: clinical practice recommendations. J Visc Surg. 2019; 156 (5): 413-422.

  41. Tsai JC, Lin YK, Huang YJ, Loh EW, Wen HY, Wang CH, et al. Antiseptic effect of conventional povidone-iodine scrub, chlorhexidine scrub, and waterless hand rub in a surgical room: a randomized controlled trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017; 38 (4): 417-422.

  42. Tanner J, Dumville JC, Norman G, Fortnam M. Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 2016 (1): CD004288. Available in: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD004288.pub3

  43. Allegranzi B, Zayed B, Bischoff P, Kubilay NZ, De Jonge S, De Vries F, et al. New WHO recommendations on intraoperative and postoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016; 16 (12): e288-303.

  44. Maureen Salomon. The science of handwashing: rub, don't scrub hands [Internet]. Medscape Medical News; 2020. Available in: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927250#:~:text=Covering%20the%20entire%20hand%20is,and%20possibly%20let%20in%20germs

  45. Ahmed A. Surgical hand scrub: lots of water wasted. Ann Afr Med. 2007; 6 (1): 31-33.

  46. Wormer BA, Augenstein VA, Carpenter CL, Burton PV, Yokeley WT, Prabhu AS, et al. The green operating room: simple changes to reduce cost and our carbon footprint. Am Surg. 2013; 79 (7): 666-671.

  47. Center for Sustainable Delivery, NHS Scotland. Embed Rubbing not Scrubbing V0.2 [Internet]. 2023. Available in: https://www.nhscfsd.co.uk/media/jtebvmwj/ngtp-rubbing-not-scrubbing-v13-january-2024.pdf

  48. Prabhu AS, Pepper S, Lincourt A, Richardson S, Yurko Y, Hubbard B, et al. Water and dollars down the drain: the real cost of water wasted during surgical hand scrubbing. J Am Coll Surg. 2009; 209 (3): S101.

  49. World Health Organization. Global guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection [Internet]. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018 [cited 2025 Aug 5]. 184 p. Available in: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/277399

  50. 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.

  51. MacEachern MT. Hospital Standardization: report on hospital standardization for the year 1926. Fourteenth Year Book. Chicago: Amercian College of Surgeons; 1927. P. 43-78.

  52. Damjanov I, Vranic S, Skenderi F. Does everything a surgeon takes out have to be seen by a pathologist? A review of the current pathology practice. Virchows Arch. 2016; 468 (1): 69-74.

  53. Jamal Z, Yu Z, Zafar N, Li D. Reconsidering routine histopathological examination of gallbladder specimens in cholecystectomy: optimizing clinical practice and resource management. Cureus. 2024; 16 (7): e64762. Available in: https://www.cureus.com/articles/229686-reconsidering-routine-histopathological-examination-of-gallbladder-specimens-in-cholecystectomy-optimizing-clinical-practice-and-resource-management

  54. Al Duhirat E, Hammoud R, Emam F, Al-Qudimat AR, Shaikh A, Alhyari A, et al. Tonsillectomy under the microscope: is routine histopathological analysis necessary? Cureus. 2024; 16 (10): e71212. Available in: https://www.cureus.com/articles/305193-tonsillectomy-under-the-microscope-is-routine-histopathological-analysis-necessary

  55. Ur Rehman M, Moussa R, Siaw Lin C, Ahmed N, Rehman A, Malik K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of routine histopathological analysis of doughnuts after colorectal surgery three-year single-centre experience. Int J Surg Oncol. 2024; 2024: 9837336.

  56. Yusufi MA, Uneeb M, Khan MA, Siddiq G, Khan MS. Routine histopathology in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy over 10 years. Cureus. 2024; 16 (9): e69441. Available in: https://www.cureus.com/articles/295840-routine-histopathology-in-laparoscopic-sleeve-gastrectomy-over-10-years

  57. Desai AA, Knott EM, Alemayehu H, Sherman AK, St. Peter SD, Ostlie DJ. Histologic analysis of the hernia sac: current practices based on a survey of IPEG members. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2014; 24 (9): 660-663.

  58. Westwood E, Walshaw J, Boag K, Chua W, Dimashki S, Khalid H, et al. Time for change: compliance with RCS green theatre checklist – facilitators and barriers on the journey to net zero. Front Surg. 2023; 10: 1260301.

  59. Bell KJL, Stancliffe R. Less is more for greener intensive care. Intensive Care Med. 2024; 50 (5): 746-748.

  60. Furuya EY, Dick AW, Herzig CTA, Pogorzelska-Maziarz M, Larson EL, Stone PW. Central line-associated bloodstream infection reduction and bundle compliance in intensive care units: a national study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016; 37 (7): 805-810.

  61. Cassone M, Ameling J, Mody L, Patel S, Muyanja NS, Meddings J. Impact of external female urinary catheter use on urine chemistry test results. Am J Infect Control. 2024; 52 (8): 919-924.

  62. Patel PK, Advani SD, Kofman AD, Lo E, Maragakis LL, Pegues DA, et al. Strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections in acute-care hospitals: 2022 Update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2023; 44 (8): 1209-1231.

  63. Venkataraman R, Yadav U. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection: an overview. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol. 2023; 34 (1): 5-10.

  64. Meddings J, Rogers MAM, Krein SL, Fakih MG, Olmsted RN, Saint S. Reducing unnecessary urinary catheter use and other strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection: an integrative review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014; 23 (4): 277-289.

  65. McAlister S, Barratt AL, Bell KJ, McGain F. The carbon footprint of pathology testing. Med J Aust. 2020; 212 (8): 377-382.

  66. Antunez AG, Kazemi RJ, Richburg C, Pesavento C, Vastardis A, Kim E, et al. Multicomponent deimplementation strategy to reduce low-value preoperative testing. JAMA Surg. 2025; 160 (3): 304.

  67. Global Green and Haelthy Hospitals. Reducing low-value tests in the barwon health emergency department. Case study. Available in: https://greenhospitals.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/Reducing%20Low-Value%20Tests%20-%20Barwon%20Health.pdf

  68. Skarda DE, Rollins M, Andrews S, McFadden M, Barnhart D, Meyers R, et al. One hospital, one appendectomy: The cost effectiveness of a standardized doctor's preference card. J Pediatr Surg. 2015; 50 (6): 919-922.

  69. Cichos KH, Linsky PL, Wei B, Minnich DJ, Cerfolio RJ. Cost savings of standardization of thoracic surgical instruments: the process of lean. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017; 104 (6): 1889-1895.

  70. Morris LF, Romero Arenas MA, Cerny J, Berger JS, Borror CM, Ong M, et al. Streamlining variability in hospital charges for standard thyroidectomy: Developing a strategy to decrease waste. Surgery. 2014; 156 (6): 1441-1449.

  71. Chin CJ, Sowerby LJ, John-Baptiste A, Rotenberg BW. Reducing otolaryngology surgical inefficiency via assessment of tray redundancy. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014; 43 (1): 46.

  72. Farrokhi FR, Gunther M, Williams B, Blackmore CC. Application of lean methodology for improved quality and efficiency in operating room instrument availability. J Healthc Qual. 2015; 37 (5): 277-286.

  73. Rouvière N, Chkair S, Auger F, Alovisetti C, Bernard Mj, Cuvillon P, et al. Ecoresponsible actions in operating rooms: a health ecological and economic evaluation. Int J Surg. 2022; 101: 106637.

  74. Cunha MF, Pellino G. Environmental effects of surgical procedures and strategies for sustainable surgery. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023; 20 (6): 399-410.

  75. Stall NM, Kagoma YK, Bondy JN, Naudie D. Surgical waste audit of 5 total knee arthroplasties. Can J Surg. 2013; 56 (2): 97-102.

  76. Kwakye G. Green surgical practices for health care. Arch Surg. 2011; 146 (2): 131.

  77. Gamba A, Napierska D, Zotinca A. Measuring and reducing plastics in the healthcare sector [Internet]. Health Care Without Harm; 2021 [Cited 2025 Jun 30]. Available from: https://europe.noharm.org/sites/default/files/documents-files/6886/2021-09-23-measuring-and-reducing-plastics-in-the-healthcare-sector.pdf

  78. Zygourakis CC, Yoon S, Valencia V, Boscardin C, Moriates C, Gonzales R, et al. Operating room waste: disposable supply utilization in neurosurgical procedures. J Neurosurg. 2017; 126 (2): 620-625.

  79. Conrardy J, Hillanbrand M, Myers S, Nussbaum GF. Reducing medical waste. AORN J. 2010; 91 (6): 711-721.

  80. Yung E, Gagner M, Pomp A, Dakin G, Milone L, Strain G. Cost comparison of reusable and single-use ultrasonic shears for laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2010; 20 (4): 512-518.

  81. Vozzola E, Overcash M, Griffing E. An environmental analysis of reusable and disposable surgical gowns. AORN J. 2020; 111 (3): 315-325.

  82. Kümmerer K, Dettenkofer M, Scherrer M. Comparison of reusable and disposable tanfordy pads. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 1996; 1 (2): 67-73.

  83. Ibbotson S, Dettmer T, Kara S, Herrmann C. Eco-efficiency of disposable and reusable surgical instruments – a scissors case. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2013; 18 (5): 1137-1148.

  84. Eckelman MJ, Sherman J. Environmental Impacts of the U.S. Health Care System and Effects on Public Health. PloS One. 2016; 11 (6): e0157014.

  85. Sherman JD, Thiel C, MacNeill A, Eckelman MJ, Dubrow R, Hopf H, et al. The green print: advancement of environmental sustainability in healthcare. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2020; 161: 104882.

  86. Adler S, Scherrer M, Rückauer KD, Daschner FD. Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2005; 19 (2): 268-272.

  87. Boberg L, Singh J, Montgomery A, Bentzer P. Environmental impact of single-use, reusable, and mixed trocar systems used for laparoscopic cholecystectomies. PloS One. 2022; 17 (7): e0271601.

  88. Siu J, Hill AG, MacCormick AD. Systematic review of reusable versus disposable laparoscopic instruments: costs and safety. ANZ J Surg. 2017; 87 (1-2): 28-33.

  89. Lau H, Lee F, Patil NG, Yuen WK. Two hundred endoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasties: cost containment by reusable instruments. Chin Med J (Engl). 2002; 115 (6): 888-891.

  90. Meissner M, Lichtnegger S, Gibson S, Saunders R. Evaluating the waste prevention potential of a multi- versus single-use surgical stapler. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021; 14: 3911-3921.

  91. Park KY, Russell JI, Wilke NP, Marka NA, Nichol PF. Reducing cost and waste in pediatric laparoscopic procedures. J Pediatr Surg. 2021; 56 (1): 66-70.

  92. Fengler TW, Pahlke H, Bisson S, Kraas E. The clinical suitability of laparoscopic instrumentation: A prospective clinical study of function and hygiene. Surg Endosc. 2000; 14 (4): 388-394.

  93. Weiss A, Hollandsworth HM, Alseidi A, Scovel L, French C, Derrick EL, et al. Environmentalism in surgical practice. Curr Probl Surg. 2016; 53 (4): 165-205.

  94. Rizan C, Bhutta MF. Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2022; 36 (6): 4067-4078.

  95. Sorensen BL, Wenzel H. Life cycle assessment of alternative bedpans – a case of comparing disposable and reusable devices. J Clean Prod. 2014; 83: 70-79.

  96. Rodriguez Morris MI, Hicks A. Life cycle assessment of stainless-steel reusable speculums versus disposable acrylic speculums in a university clinic setting: a case study. Environ Res Commun. 2022; 4 (2): 025002.

  97. Meissner M, Hafermann J, Silas U, Saunders R. Evaluating the environmental impact of single-use and multi-use surgical staplers with staple line buttressing in laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2023; 16: 1423-1433.

  98. Krishnan R, MacNeil SD, Malvankar-Mehta MS. Comparing sutures versus staples for skin closure after orthopaedic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016; 6 (1): e009257.

  99. Guía para la compra sostenible de guantes [Internet]. Salud sin Daño. Disponible en: https://lac.saludsindanio.org/media/4524/download?inline=1

  100. Saab Y, Oueis E, Mehanna S, Nakad Z, Stephan R, Khnayzer RS. Risk assessment of phthalates and their metabolites in hospitalized patients: a focus on di- and mono-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalates exposure from intravenous plastic bags. Toxics. 2022; 10 (7): 357.

  101. National Toxicology Program (NTP). 15th Report on Carcinogens [Internet]. 111 TW Alexander Dr, Durham, NC 27709: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; [cited 2025 Jul 7]. Available in: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc15

  102. Dorota Napierska. Non-Toxic Health Care: Alternatives to harzadous chemicals in medical devices: phtalalates and bisphenol A [Internet]. HCWH Europe; 2019. Available in: https://europe.noharm.org/sites/default/files/documents-files/6154/2019-12-03_HCWH_Non_Toxic_Healthcare_2_WEB.pdf

  103. John Howse. DEHP minimization in intravenous administration sets-California and Hawaii regions [Internet]. Kaiser Permanente; 2008 [Cited 2025 Jul 7] Available in: https://practicegreenhealth.org/sites/default/files/upload-files/dehp_min_iv_admin_sets_11.08.pdf

  104. Health Care Without Harm. Reducing PVC and DEHP in medical products. Sustainable procurement quick guide [Internet]. [Cited 2025 Aug 5]. Available in: https://global.noharm.org/media/4440/download?inline=1

  105. Fundación Valle del Lili. ¡FVL pionera a nivel mundial en la reducción de plásticos en el sector salud! [Internet]. Fundación Valle del Lili. 2023. Available in: https://valledellili.org/fvl-pionera-a-nivel-mundial-en-la-reduccion-de-plasticos-en-el-sector-salud/

  106. Loff S, Kabs F, Witt K, Sartoris J, Mandl B, Niessen KH, et al. Polyvinylchloride infusion lines expose infants to large amounts of toxic plasticizers. J Pediatr Surg. 2000; 35 (12): 1775-1781.

  107. Mallow EB, Fox MA. Phthalates and critically ill neonates: device-related exposures and non-endocrine toxic risks. J Perinatol. 2014; 34 (12): 892-897.

  108. Wowkonowicz P, Kijenska M. Phthalate release in leachate from municipal landfills of central Poland. PloS One. 2017; 12 (3): e0174986.

  109. Kaplan S, Sadler B, Little K, Franz C, Orris P. Can sustainable hospitals help bend the health care cost curve? Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2012; 29: 1-14.

  110. Vacharathit V, Walsh RM, Utech J, Asfaw SH. Action in healthcare sustainability is a surgical imperative: this is a novel way to do it. J Surg Educ. 2022; 79 (2): 275-258.

  111. Bolten A, Kringos DS, Spijkerman IJB, Sperna Weiland NH. The carbon footprint of the operating room related to infection prevention measures: a scoping review. J Hosp Infect. 2022; 128: 64-73.

  112. Traversari AAL, Bottenheft C, Van Heumen SPM, Goedhart CA, Vos MC. Effect of switching off unidirectional downflow systems of operating theaters during prolonged inactivity on the period before the operating theater can safely be used. Am J Infect Control. 2017; 45 (2): 139-144.

  113. Dettenkofer M, Scherrer M, Hoch V, Glaser H, Schwarzer G, Zentner J, et al. Shutting down operating theater ventilation when the theater is not in use: infection control and environmental aspects. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003; 24 (8): 596-600.

  114. Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments – Part 1: Classification of air cleanliness by particle concentration [Internet]. 2015 [Cited 2025 Jul 7]. Available in: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:53394:en

  115. Lee ST, Liang CC, Chien TY, Wu FJ, Fan KC, Wan GH. Effect of ventilation rate on air cleanliness and energy consumption in operation rooms at rest. Environ Monit Assess. 2018; 190 (3): 178. Available in: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10661-018-6556-z

  116. Healthcare Plastics Recycling Council Copyright© HPRC 2016. Chicago Regional Demonstration Project Report Presented by HPRC and PLASTICS [Internet]. December 20216 [cited 2025 Aug 5]. Available in: https://www.hprc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/HPRC-PLASTICS-Chicago-Project-Final-Report.pdf

  117. Bae JH, Ravinal L, Barth E, Yanda M, Bae DS, Arato G, et al. The "6th R" of sustainability: repurposing operating room waste for community benefit. Am J Surg. 2024; 238: 115930.

  118. Standford University. Stanford-Brazil partnership upcycles hospital textiles and empowers communities [Internet]. In focus: environmental venture projects. [Cited 2025 Jul 7]. Available in: https://woods.stanford.edu/news/tanford-brazil-partnership-upcycles-hospital-textiles-and-empowers-communities

  119. Paz C, Peluffo D, Cardoso R, Krause H, Gil C. Informe "Hospitales que curan el planeta" [Internet]. Salud sin Daño; 2023 [Cited 2025 Jul 7]. Available in: https://hospitalesporlasaludambiental.org/sites/default/files/2023-12/SSD%202023_FINAL_WEB.pdf

  120. Nansai K, Fry J, Malik A, Takayanagi W, Kondo N. Carbon footprint of Japanese health care services from 2011 to 2015. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2020; 152: 104525.

  121. Sauro KM, Smith C, Ibadin S, Thomas A, Ganshorn H, Bakunda L, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines and hospital length of stay, readmission, complications, and mortality: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Netw Open. 2024; 7 (6): e2417310.

  122. Liu VX, Rosas E, Hwang J, Cain E, Foss-Durant A, Clopp M, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery program implementation in 2 surgical populations in an integrated health care delivery system. JAMA Surg. 2017; 152 (7): e171032.

  123. Slim K, Veziant J, Enguix A, Zieleskiewicz L. Environmental impact of the enhanced recovery pathway in colorectal surgery: a simulation study. Colorectal Dis. 2025; 27 (1): e17247.

  124. Yap A, Wang K, Chen E, Melhado C, Ahmad T, O'Sullivan P, et al. A mixed-methods study on end-user perceptions of transitioning to reusable surgical gowns. Surg Open Sci. 2023; 11: 33-39.

  125. Salud sin Daño. Ruta para la conformación del equipo de compras sostenibles en establecimientos de salud. [Internet]. [Citado 2025 Agosto 5]. Disponible en: https://lac.saludsindanio.org/media/4626/download?inline=1

  126. Raihan N, Cogburn M. Stages of Change Theory. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 [Cited 2025 Aug 13]. Available in: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556005/

  127. Alyafei A, Easton-Carr R. The health belief model of behavior change. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 [Cited 2025 Aug 13]. Available in: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK606120/

  128. Sant'Anna A, Vilhelmsson A, Wolf A. Nudging healthcare professionals in clinical settings: a scoping review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21 (1): 543.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com