This study aimed to assess the carbon footprint associated with total hip arthroplasty (THA) in a UK hospital setting, considering various components within the operating theatre. The primary objective was to identify actionable areas for reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable orthopaedic practices. Using a life-cycle assessment approach, we conducted a prospective study on ten cemented and ten hybrid THA cases, evaluating carbon emissions from anaesthetic room to recovery. Scope 1 and scope 2 emissions were considered, focusing on direct emissions and energy consumption. Data included detailed assessments of consumables, waste generation, and energy use during surgeries.Aims
Methods
We evaluated the top 13 journals in trauma and
orthopaedics by impact factor and looked at the longer-term effect regarding
citations of their papers. All 4951 papers published in these journals during 2007 and 2008
were reviewed and categorised by their type, subspecialty and super-specialty.
All citations indexed through Google Scholar were reviewed to establish
the rate of citation per paper at two, four and five years post-publication.
The top five journals published a total of 1986 papers. Only three
(0.15%) were on operative orthopaedic surgery and none were on trauma.
Most (n = 1084, 54.5%) were about experimental basic science. Surgical
papers had a lower rate of citation (2.18) at two years than basic science
or clinical medical papers (4.68). However, by four years the rates
were similar (26.57 for surgery, 30.35 for basic science/medical),
which suggests that there is a considerable time lag before clinical
surgical research has an impact. We conclude that high impact journals do not address clinical
research in surgery and when they do, there is a delay before such
papers are cited. We suggest that a rate of citation at five years
post-publication might be a more appropriate indicator of importance
for papers in our specialty. Cite this article: