Environmental impact of total hip replacements: a life cycle assessment study

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a detailed LCA methodology and sensitivity analysis for surgical procedures, useful for healthcare sustainability research.

🏢実務担当者:Identifies key areas (disposables, implants, sterilization) for hospitals to reduce environmental impact.

🏛政策担当者:Supports policies promoting single-use device reduction and renewable energy in healthcare.

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.

• semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-109563first seen 2026-07-24 07:04:40