Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science Cover Image for Volume 65, Issue 7
June 2024
Volume 65, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2024
5-Year Efficacy and Cost-Savings: Aluminum Foil Drape vs. Standard Surgical Drape in Oculoplastic Surgery
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Matthew Justin Lee
    Division of Ophthalmology, Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School, Providence, Rhode Island, United States
  • Philip Rizzuto
    Division of Ophthalmology, Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School, Providence, Rhode Island, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Matthew Lee None; Philip Rizzuto None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2024, Vol.65, 6410. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Matthew Justin Lee, Philip Rizzuto; 5-Year Efficacy and Cost-Savings: Aluminum Foil Drape vs. Standard Surgical Drape in Oculoplastic Surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2024;65(7):6410.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Building on a previous case review, presented at ARVO 2016, this study uses a larger sample size to report differences in primary efficacy endpoints, cost, and potential carbon footprint between an aluminum foil drape and standard paper surgical drape in common oculoplastic surgical procedures.

Methods : The five highest volume surgical procedures (blepharoplasty, ptosis repair, entropion or ectropion repair, and lesion excision) performed by a single surgeon in an office-based surgery suite and hospital-based ambulatory surgery center from January 2018 to December 2022 were compared. All surgeries performed in the office-based surgery suite used three aluminum foil drapes, while those in the hospital-based ambulatory surgery center used two spunbond meltblown spunbond drapes. Patient records were retrospectively reviewed for incidence of a surgical site infection (SSI), skin burn from laser, or drape fire. A cost analysis was performed using manufacturing information. The carbon footprint of each product was estimated using the Inventory of Carbon and Energy database (version 3), which includes embodied carbon footprint estimates for various materials.

Results : 2099 cases were included for analysis. 1180 surgeries were performed with the aluminum foil drape (697 blepharoplasty, 132 ptosis repair, 62 entropion repair, 102 ectropion repair, 187 lesion excision) and 919 surgeries were performed with the standard surgical drape (65 blepharoplasty, 55 ptosis repair, 65 entropion repair, 62 ectropion repair, 672 lesion excision). There were zero incidences of SSI, skin burn from laser, or drape fire reported in either group. The aluminum foil drape demonstrated a 96.8% cost savings per procedure compared to the standard surgical drape. The potential carbon footprint estimate, factoring in proper recycling, was 90.1% lower for the aluminum foil drape.

Conclusions : An aluminum foil drape remains a safe and cost-effective alternative to a standard surgical drape for oculoplastic surgical procedures. Improving recycling programs in the operating room can reduce the ecological footprint of an aluminum foil drape and other recyclable waste.

This abstract was presented at the 2024 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, WA, May 5-9, 2024.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×