Carbon footprint of a laser unit: a study of two centres in the UK.

PURPOSE: Climate change has serious consequences for our wellbeing. Healthcare systems themselves contribute significantly to our total carbon footprint, of which emissions from surgical practice are a major component. The primary sources of emissions identified are anaesthetic gases, disposal of single-use equipment, energy usage, and travel to and from clinical areas. We sought to quantify the waste generated by laser surgery which, to our knowledge, has not been previously reported. METHODS: The carbon footprint of two laser centres operating within the United Kingdom were measured. The internationally recognised Greenhouse Gas Protocol was used as a guiding framework to classify sources of waste and conversion factors issued by the UK government were used to quantify emissions. RESULTS: The total carbon footprints per day at each unit were 299.181 carbon dioxide equivalents (kgCo2eq) and 121.512 kgCO2eq, respectively. We found the carbon footprint of individual laser treatments to be approximately 15 kgCO2eq per procedure. The biggest overall contributor to the carbon footprint was found to be the emissions generated from staff, patient and visitor travel. This was followed by electricity usage, and indirect emissions from physical waste and laundry. CONCLUSIONS: The carbon footprint of laser procedures was considerably less than the average surgical operation in the UK. This initial study measures the carbon footprint of a laser center in a clinical setting and allows us to identify where improvements can be made to eventually achieve a net carbon zero health care system.

Congenital brachial artery occlusion causing neonatal forearm compartment syndrome.

Congenital brachial artery occlusion is rare. We report four patients who presented at birth with absent wrist pulses. We propose management recommendations that include anti-coagulation, duplex ultrasound assessment and fasciotomy surgery as early as is safe and possible.

Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cell Implants for the Treatment of Focal Chondral Defects of the Knee in Animal Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Osteoarthritis remains an unfortunate long-term consequence of focal cartilage defects of the knee. Associated with functional loss and pain, it has necessitated the exploration of new therapies to regenerate cartilage before significant deterioration and subsequent joint replacement take place. Recent studies have investigated a multitude of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) sources and polymer scaffold compositions. It is uncertain how different combinations affect the extent of integration of native and implant cartilage and the quality of new cartilage formed. Implants seeded with bone marrow-derived MSCs (BMSCs) have demonstrated promising results in restoring these defects, largely through in vitro and animal studies. A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using five databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL) to identify studies using BMSC-seeded implants in animal models of focal cartilage defects of the knee. Quantitative results from the histological assessment of integration quality were extracted. Repair cartilage morphology and staining characteristics were also recorded. Meta-analysis demonstrated that high-quality integration was achieved, exceeding that of cell-free comparators and control groups. This was associated with repair tissue morphology and staining properties which resembled those of native cartilage. Subgroup analysis showed better integration outcomes for studies using poly-glycolic acid-based scaffolds. In conclusion, BMSC-seeded implants represent promising strategies for the advancement of focal cartilage defect repair. While a greater number of studies treating human patients is necessary to realize the full clinical potential of BMSC therapy, high-quality integration scores suggest that these implants could generate repair cartilage of substantial longevity.

The Use of Autologous Chondrocyte and Mesenchymal Stem Cell Implants for the Treatment of Focal Chondral Defects in Human Knee Joints-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Focal chondral defects of the knee occur commonly in the young, active population due to trauma. Damage can insidiously spread and lead to osteoarthritis with significant functional and socioeconomic consequences. Implants consisting of autologous chondrocytes or mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) seeded onto scaffolds have been suggested as promising therapies to restore these defects. However, the degree of integration between the implant and native cartilage still requires optimization. A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using five databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL) to identify studies that used autologous chondrocyte implants (ACI) or MSC implant therapies to repair chondral defects of the tibiofemoral joint. Data on the integration of the implant-cartilage interface, as well as outcomes of clinical scoring systems, were extracted. Most eligible studies investigated the use of ACI only. Our meta-analysis showed that, across a total of 200 patients, 64% (95% CI (51%, 75%)) achieved complete integration with native cartilage. In addition, a pooled improvement in the mean MOCART integration score was observed during post-operative follow-up (standardized mean difference: 1.16; 95% CI (0.07, 2.24), p = 0.04). All studies showed an improvement in the clinical scores. The use of a collagen-based scaffold was associated with better integration and clinical outcomes. This review demonstrated that cell-seeded scaffolds can achieve good quality integration in most patients, which improves over time and is associated with clinical improvements. A greater number of studies comparing these techniques to traditional cartilage repair methods, with more inclusion of MSC-seeded scaffolds, should allow for a standardized approach to cartilage regeneration to develop.

Moral ambivalence towards the Cancer Drugs Fund.

The UK's Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) was introduced in 2010 following the Conservative Party's promise to address the fact that numerous efficacious cancer drugs were not available because of their cost ineffectiveness, as deduced by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. While, at face value, this policy appears only to promote the UK's public welfare, a deeper analysis reveals the ethically unjustifiable inconsistencies that the CDF introduces; where is the analogous fund for other equally severe diseases? Have the patients without cancer been neglected simply due to the fear-inducing advertising and particularly ferocious speech which surrounds cancer? The CDF is unjustifiable when challenged by such questions. However, it is troubling to think that the CDF might be repealed in order to abolish these ethical concerns. Intuitively, one feels uncomfortable stripping the cancer patient of their benefits just so that they might be on an equally pessimistic footing with others. In the present essay, I argue that, although there are no ethically justifiable grounds for the CDF's introduction, its removal would be inappropriate. Following this realisation, I investigate whether the procedural steps of the CDF itself-theoretically removed from the context of resource distribution for all disease types-represent an ethically justifiable system. I believe that the answer is yes, given the CDF's conformity to accountability for reasonableness, a robust framework of procedural justice, which continuously improves the ethical and epistemological standards of the policies to which it is applied.