I'm from a primary care background and involved with CSH in various ways so I'm out of my depth in this forum I think. I relatively recently had planned retinal surgery. My surgeon suggested using SF6. He did not know its CO2e (which I understand to be 26500x CO2) and could not give me the CO2e of alternative gases for the procedure.
I wonder how general this level of knowledge is... and am concerned as not knowing and sharing these figures would seem to undermine informed consent. ("Patients must be advised about their treatment options and the risks associated with each option so that they can make informed decisions when giving or withholding consent to treatment" Montgomery judgement UK Supreme court)
I also understand that SF6 is not classed as a drug ... and so does not get looked at when we measure the carbon impact of different specialities (I think it gets counted along with other products used by the hospital) So I wonder how much those on this forum know about their use of SF6 and what moves there are to ensure it is as small as possible ?
Hi Mike, we have done some work in the area. We looked at the use of SF6 in medicine, including retinal surgery. The data sets are difficult to access, as there are coding problems with the procedures. See attached overview. I am a clinical pharmacist, with industrial chemistry background. I work with propellant systems for aerosol delivery. Happy to discuss.
thanks Michael, lots of data here... though I think it leaves some of my questions to ophthalmologists still unanswered... re how the speciality plans to measure and reduce this high GWP gas ...
Hi Mike,
Thanks. Silicone oil is the zero GWP alternative, see slide 25. There is an UK ophthalmologist database but it is member only access. The Snomed codes do not record which substance used. The manufacturer data is private. So very difficult to measure. It would simpler just to ban it and use silicone oil.
Regards,
Michael.
Please log in or sign up to comment.