Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Surgical cap attire plays an important role in creating a safe and sterile environment in procedural suites, thus the choice of reusable versus disposable caps has become an issue of much debate. Given the lack of evidence for differences in surgical site infection (SSI) risk between the two, selecting the cap option with a lower carbon footprint may reduce the environmental impact of surgical procedures. However, many institutions continue to recommend the use of disposable bouffant caps.
METHODS: ISO-14044 guidelines were used to complete a process-based life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impact of disposable bouffant caps and reusable cotton caps, specifically focusing on CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions, water use and health impacts.
RESULTS: Reusable cotton caps reduced CO2e emissions by 79% when compared to disposable bouffant caps (10 kg versus 49 kg CO2e) under the base model scenario with a similar reduction seen in disability-adjusted life years. However, cotton caps were found to be more water intensive than bouffant caps (67.56 L versus 12.66 L) with the majority of water use secondary to production or manufacturing.
CONCLUSIONS: Reusable cotton caps have lower total lifetime CO2e emissions compared to disposable bouffant caps across multiple use scenarios. Given the lack of evidence suggesting a superior choice for surgical site infection prevention, guidelines should recommend reusable cotton caps to reduce the environmental impact of surgical procedures.
METHODS: ISO-14044 guidelines were used to complete a process-based life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impact of disposable bouffant caps and reusable cotton caps, specifically focusing on CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions, water use and health impacts.
RESULTS: Reusable cotton caps reduced CO2e emissions by 79% when compared to disposable bouffant caps (10 kg versus 49 kg CO2e) under the base model scenario with a similar reduction seen in disability-adjusted life years. However, cotton caps were found to be more water intensive than bouffant caps (67.56 L versus 12.66 L) with the majority of water use secondary to production or manufacturing.
CONCLUSIONS: Reusable cotton caps have lower total lifetime CO2e emissions compared to disposable bouffant caps across multiple use scenarios. Given the lack of evidence suggesting a superior choice for surgical site infection prevention, guidelines should recommend reusable cotton caps to reduce the environmental impact of surgical procedures.
摘要：
背景：手术帽服装在程序套件中创建安全和无菌的环境中起着重要作用，因此，可重复使用的帽子与一次性帽子的选择已经成为许多争论的问题。鉴于缺乏证据表明两者之间的手术部位感染（SSI）风险存在差异，选择碳足迹较低的帽选项可以减少外科手术对环境的影响。然而,许多机构继续建议使用一次性蓬松帽。
方法：使用ISO-14044指南完成了基于过程的生命周期评估，以比较一次性蓬松帽和可重复使用的棉帽对环境的影响，特别关注二氧化碳当量(CO2e)排放，用水和健康影响。
结果：在基本模型情景下，与一次性蓬松帽相比，可重复使用的棉帽减少了79％的CO2e排放量（10kg对49kgCO2e），在残疾调整寿命年中也有类似的减少。然而,棉帽被发现比蓬松帽更耗水（67.56L对12.66L），大部分水的使用是生产或制造的次要。
结论：在多种使用场景中，与一次性蓬松帽相比，可重复使用的棉帽具有较低的总寿命CO2e排放。鉴于缺乏证据表明手术部位感染预防的最佳选择，指南应推荐可重复使用的棉帽，以减少外科手术对环境的影响。
方法：使用ISO-14044指南完成了基于过程的生命周期评估，以比较一次性蓬松帽和可重复使用的棉帽对环境的影响，特别关注二氧化碳当量(CO2e)排放，用水和健康影响。
结果：在基本模型情景下，与一次性蓬松帽相比，可重复使用的棉帽减少了79％的CO2e排放量（10kg对49kgCO2e），在残疾调整寿命年中也有类似的减少。然而,棉帽被发现比蓬松帽更耗水（67.56L对12.66L），大部分水的使用是生产或制造的次要。
结论：在多种使用场景中，与一次性蓬松帽相比，可重复使用的棉帽具有较低的总寿命CO2e排放。鉴于缺乏证据表明手术部位感染预防的最佳选择，指南应推荐可重复使用的棉帽，以减少外科手术对环境的影响。
