Carbon footprint in trauma surgery, is there a way to reduce it?
View abstract on PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.Switching trauma surgeries from general to regional anesthesia significantly cuts sevoflurane use, reducing environmental impact. Regional anesthesia also shows a trend towards lower complication rates compared to general anesthesia.
Area Of Science
- Anesthesiology
- Environmental Health
- Trauma Surgery
Background
- Inhaled anesthetics like sevoflurane contribute significantly to healthcare's carbon footprint.
- Minimizing sevoflurane use is recommended, yet general anesthesia prevails in trauma surgeries.
- Regional anesthesia offers an alternative for many trauma procedures.
Purpose Of The Study
- To evaluate the environmental benefits of regional anesthesia versus general anesthesia in trauma surgery.
- To compare complication rates between regional and general anesthesia for trauma patients.
Main Methods
- Retrospective study of trauma patients (≥18 years) undergoing surgery for hand, wrist, hip, or ankle fractures (2017-2021).
- Calculated hypothetical environmental gain assuming all surgeries used regional anesthesia.
- Compared complication rates between regional and general anesthesia groups.
Main Results
- General anesthesia was used in 95% of 2,714 trauma surgeries; regional anesthesia in 5%.
- A switch to regional anesthesia could reduce sevoflurane use by 92kg, equivalent to 406,553 km of car travel.
- Complication rates were higher with general anesthesia (7.7%) than regional anesthesia (6.9%), though not statistically significant (p=0.75).
Conclusions
- Significant environmental benefits are achievable by reducing sevoflurane use in trauma surgeries suitable for regional anesthesia.
- Regional anesthesia presents a viable, potentially safer alternative for specific trauma surgeries.

