Environmental sustainability in pediatric otolaryngology: An international survey of operating room practice patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate international practice patterns related to environmental sustainability in pediatric otolaryngology ORs, with a focus on the use of single-use versus reusable supplies. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed using REDCap to members of an international pediatric otolaryngology WhatsApp group (n = 324). The survey included multiple-choice, Likert-scale, and open-ended questions regarding drape, gown, and glove usage for adenotonsillectomy, ear tube insertion, and laryngoscopy/bronchoscopy procedures, and broader sustainability practices including barriers and enablers. RESULTS: Response rate was 16.0 % (n = 52/324). Respondents were from North America (30.8 %), Europe (25.0 %), Australia/New Zealand (23.1 %), Asia (15.4 %), South America (3.8 %), and Africa (1.9 %). For adenotonsillectomy 61.5 % reported using single-use patient drapes, 61.5 % use single-use table drapes, and 44.2 % use single-use gowns. For ear tube insertions, single-use table drapes (53.8 %) were most frequently reported; single-use patient drapes (38.4 %) and gowns (21.2 %) were less common. For laryngoscopy/bronchoscopy, the majority did not use patient drapes (31.4 %) or gowns (32.7 %), while 62.8 % use single-use table drapes. Top barriers to improving sustainability in the OR were cost (51.9 %) and infection prevention and control (IPAC) practices (44.2 %). Enablers included sufficient technological (46.2 %) and financial (36.6 %) resources, dedicated policies (30.8 %), and supportive leadership (34.6 %). CONCLUSION: There remains a strong reliance on single-use materials in pediatric otolaryngology ORs globally. Cost, IPAC, education, and leadership are important considerations in sustainability efforts. These findings identify actionable targets for waste reduction and support the need for specialty-specific sustainability interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".