Reducing surgical trays to cut both carbon emissions and costs in total knee arthroplasty
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.43677Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Carbon footprint, Implants, Knee, Osteoarthrosis, StatisticsAbstract
Background and purpose: Operating theatres are significant contributors to hospital waste and carbon emissions. In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the number of surgical trays — and thus the carbon footprint — may be reduced by accurately estimating the prosthesis size preoperatively. We aimed to develop a predictive model to improve preoperative estimation of femoral prosthesis size and reduce the number of trays used in primary TKA.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all primary TKA procedures performed between January 2012 and November 2022 at a single teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Using repeated hold-out cross-validation, we developed a prediction model based on routinely available demographic and anthropometric data to predict femoral component size. Rather than minimizing instruments per tray, our strategy focused on reducing the total number of trays. We used the created prediction model in combination with frequency data from our implanted TKAs to tailor surgical trays accordingly. We performed a post-hoc analysis to estimate the carbon emission cut and cost reduction.
Results: The best-performing models utilized overlapping tray size ranges, with a practical limit of 3 sizes per tray. The final model predicted the appropriate size range with 97.4% accuracy. This enabled the elimination of 1 tray from the standard surgical setup, reducing total tray use by 11%.
Conclusion: Accurate preoperative prediction of femoral prosthesis size facilitates surgical tray reconfiguration. We were able to reach an 11% reduction in total trays used with an estimated 1.03 kgCO2eq and a €29.6 cost reduction per reduced tray.
Downloads
References
Choi-Schagrin W. How hospitals fuel climate change. New York Times 2021, Nov 5.
Phoon K M, Afzal I, Sochart D H, Asopa V, Gikas P, Kader D. Environmental sustainability in orthopaedic surgery. Bone Jt Open 2022; 3(8): 628-40. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.38.BJO-2022-0067.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.38.BJO-2022-0067.R1
Alam M M, Sujauddin M, Iqbal G M A, Huda S M S. Report: Healthcare waste characterization in Chittagong Medical College Hospital, Bangladesh. Waste Manag Res 2008; 26(3): 91–6. doi: 10.1177/0734242X07087661. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X07087661
Southorn T, Norrish A R, Gardner K, Baxandall R. Reducing the carbon footprint of the operating theatre: a multicentre quality improvement report. J Perioper Pract 2013; 23(6): 144-6. doi: 10.1177/175045891302300605. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/175045891302300605
van Egmond P W, Meester R J, van Dijk C N. From big hands to green fingers: it is time for a change. J ISAKOS 2023; 8(4): 213-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jisako.2023.04.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisako.2023.04.005
Saleh J R, Mitchell A, Kha S T, Outterson R, Choi A, Allen L, et al. The environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2023; 105(1): 74-82. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.22.00548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.22.00548
Schmidt N, Sijm-Eeken M E, Langhout S A, Ruchtie L, Voorbraak F P, Sperna Weiland N H. A two-step approach to create and evaluate an optimization method for surgical instrument trays to reduce their environmental impact. Cleaner Environmental Systems 2023; 11: 1-14. doi: 1016/j.cesys.2023.100154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2023.100154
Friedericy H J, van Egmond C W, Vogtländer J G, van der Eijk A C, Jansen F W. Reducing the environmental impact of sterilization packaging for surgical instruments in the operating room: a comparative life cycle assessment of disposable versus reusable systems. Sustainability 2022; 14(1): 430. doi: 10.3390/su14010430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010430
Rizan C, Lillywhite R, Reed M, Bhutta M F. Minimising carbon and financial costs of steam sterilisation and packaging of reusable surgical instruments. Br J Surg 2022; 109(2): 200-10. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znab406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znab406
Blevins J L, Rao V, Chiu Y, Lyman S, Westrich G H. Predicting implant size in total knee arthroplasty using demographic variables: linear regression and Bayesian modelling. B Joint J 2020; 102(6_Supple_A): 85-90. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B6.BJJ-2019-1620.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B6.BJJ-2019-1620.R1
Kunze K N, Polce E M, Patel A, Courtney P M, Levine B R. Validation and performance of a machine-learning derived prediction guide for total knee arthroplasty component sizing. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021; 141(12): 2235-44. doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-04041-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04041-5
Naylor B H, Butler J T, Kuczynski B, Bohm A R, Scuderi G R. Can component size in total knee arthroplasty be predicted preoperatively? An analysis of patient characteristics. J Knee Surg 2021; 36(9): 965-70. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1748902. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1748902
Ostovar M, Jabalameli M, Bahaeddini M R, Bagherifard A, Bahardoust M, Askari A. Preoperative predictors of implant size in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2023; 24(1): 650. doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06785-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06785-0
Cosendey K, Moerenhout K, Stanovici J, Jolles B M, Favre J. Intra- and inter-operator reliability of three-dimensional preoperative planning in total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2024; 144(8): 3625-30. doi: 10.1007/s00402-024-05438-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-024-05438-8
van Nieuwenhuizen K E, van Trier T, Friedericy H J, Jansen F W, Dankelman J, van der Eijk A C. Optimising surgical instrument trays for sustainability and patient safety by combining actual instrument usage and expert recommendations. Sustainability 2024; 16(16): 953 doi: 10.3390/su16166953. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166953
Toor J, Bhangu A, Wolfstadt J, Bassi G, Chung S, Rampersaud R, et al. Optimizing the surgical instrument tray to immediately increase efficiency and lower costs in the operating room. Can J Surg 2022; 65(2): E275-E281. doi: 10.1503/cjs.022720. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.022720
Brighton and Sussex Medical School C for SHUHA on CC. Green Surgery: Reducing the environmental impact of surgical care [Internet]. London. Available from: https://ukhealthalliance.org/sustainable-healthcare/green-surgery-report/
Papadopoulou A, Kumar N S, Vanhoestenberghe A, Francis N K. Environmental sustainability in robotic and laparoscopic surgery: systematic review. Br J Surg 2022; 109(10): 921-32. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znac191 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znac191
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Pim W van Egmond , Paul Lodder

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
