INTRODUCTION

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 CO equivalent (COe) emissions, water use and health impacts.

RESULTS

Reusable cotton caps reduced COe emissions by 79% when compared to disposable bouffant caps (10 kg versus 49 kg COe) 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 COe 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.