Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40817167›Full record

Observational studyJournal of robotic surgery2025

A comparative analysis of the carbon footprint in minimally invasive colorectal surgery: laparoscopic versus robotic-the coloprint pilot study.

Pere Planellas, Lídia Cornejo, Jéssica Dingelyte, David Sambrano, Frank Arnulfo Fernández, Judith Luquin, Paula Creus, Olga Delisau, Eloy Maldonado, Ramon Farrés

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Pere PlanellasColorectal Surgery Unit, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Girona, Avinguda de França s/n, 17007, Girona, Spain. pplanellas.girona.ics@gencat.cat.
Lídia CornejoGirona Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBGI), Girona, Spain.
Jéssica DingelyteFaculty of Medicine, University of Girona, Girona, Spain.
David SambranoColorectal Surgery Unit, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Girona, Avinguda de França s/n, 17007, Girona, Spain.
Frank Arnulfo FernándezColorectal Surgery Unit, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Girona, Avinguda de França s/n, 17007, Girona, Spain.
Judith LuquinColorectal Surgery Unit, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Girona, Avinguda de França s/n, 17007, Girona, Spain.
Paula CreusColorectal Surgery Unit, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Girona, Avinguda de França s/n, 17007, Girona, Spain.
Olga DelisauColorectal Surgery Unit, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Girona, Avinguda de França s/n, 17007, Girona, Spain.
Eloy MaldonadoColorectal Surgery Unit, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Girona, Avinguda de França s/n, 17007, Girona, Spain.
Ramon FarrésColorectal Surgery Unit, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Girona, Avinguda de França s/n, 17007, Girona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Climate change is a growing concern, and operating theaters are major contributors, generating up to one-third of hospital waste. The increasing use of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques has further added to this environmental burden. While some studies have assessed the carbon footprint of various surgical procedures, a direct comparison between laparoscopic and robotic colorectal cancer surgery remains unexplored. The objective is to compare the environmental impact-expressed as the carbon footprint-of solid waste generated during colorectal cancer MIS, according to the surgical approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic). This cross-sectional observational pilot study was conducted at the Josep Trueta University Hospital of Girona between October 2024 and March 2025. A total of 24 patients were included. Solid surgical waste (SSW) was classified into two categories: Group I-II (non-hazardous) and Group III (hazardous) and measured. Standardized conversion factors were applied to calculate the associated carbon emissions. The total SSW generated was 461.30 kg, 267.05 kg (57.9%) from the robotic group and 194.25 kg (42.1%) from the laparoscopic group (p < 0.001). Mean CO₂ emissions were significantly higher in the robotic group than laparoscopic (p = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, robotic surgery was associated with higher SSW and CO₂ emissions (β = 0.49, p = 0.021). A 57.7% reduction in CO₂ emissions could be achieved by implementing less polluting waste disposal methods. Robotic colorectal surgery generates a higher carbon footprint than laparoscopic surgery, although both contribute significantly to environmental impact. These findings underscore the urgent need for sustainable waste management and recycling protocols in surgical practice.

Indexed as

Carbon FootprintColorectal NeoplasmsColorectal SurgeryLaparoscopyMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsCarbon footprintEnvironmental sustainabilityLaparoscopyMinimally invasive colorectal surgeryRobotic surgeryWaste

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.