Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 9, 2026
The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
Environmental impact of total hip replacements: a life cycle assessment study
Anna Roe Rasmussen1,2, Stig Brorson3,2, Katarzyna Dudka4,5
1Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics, Zealand University Hospital, Køge, Denmark annair@regsj.dk.
Objectives:
Healthcare contributes considerably to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from operating theatres. The global demand for total hip replacements (THR) is rising, highlighting the need to understand its impact on the environment. The study aims to assess the environmental impact of THRs using life cycle assessment (LCA) and to identify key contributors.
Design:
A process-based LCA focusing on the surgical procedure was conducted in accordance with global standards (ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006). Eleven sensitivity scenarios were performed to assess the robustness of the results.
Setting:
A Danish University Hospital.
Participants:
The empirical data involved the quantity and type of surgical equipment, material composition, energy usage and clinical infrastructure. There were no study participants.
Interventions:
No study interventions were performed.
Primary And Secondary Outcome Measures:
18 environmental impact scores, such as global warming, human toxicity and water consumption, were assessed.
Results:
The carbon footprint of a THR was 62.0 kg CO2e, with major contributors being single-use disposable utensils (54 %), implants (22 %), and sterilisation of non-disposable utensils (18 %). Operating theatre energy usage, non-disposable utensils and clinical infrastructure contributed less, at 3 %, 2 % and 1 % each. Although the results of the other 17 environmental impact scores varied, they were predominantly influenced by the same factors as the carbon footprint. The sensitivity analysis showed that the overall carbon footprint varied by no more than 6 % unless the energy system shifted to less renewable energy, potentially increasing the footprint by 47 %.
Conclusion:
THRs impose a substantial environmental burden, and sustainable solutions should focus on the primary drivers of this impact: disposable utensils, implants and the sterilisation process. In contrast, clinical infrastructure and non-disposable utensils appear to have a relatively minimal environmental impact.
