Observational studyJournal of robotic surgery2025
A comparative analysis of the carbon footprint in minimally invasive colorectal surgery: laparoscopic versus robotic-the coloprint pilot study.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Environmental impact of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Environmental stewardship and robotic surgery: innovation without compromise.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Surgical Oncologists for Sustainability: A Statement from the SSO Surgical Oncologists for Sustainability Committee.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Comment on "A comparative analysis of the carbon footprint in minimally invasive colorectal surgery: laparoscopic versus robotic-the coloprint pilot study".Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
40817167What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.