Environmental damage affects many aspects of healthcare, from extreme weather events to evolving population disease. Singapore's healthcare sector has the world's second highest healthcare emissions per capita, hampering the nation's pledge to reduce emissions by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. In this review, we provide an overview of the impact environmental damage has on healthcare, including facilities, supply chain and human health, and examine measures to address healthcare's impact on the environment. Utilising the 'R's of sustainability - rethinking, reducing/refusing, reusing/repurposing/reprocessing, repairing, recycling and research - we have summarised the opportunities and challenges across medical disciplines. Awareness and advocacy to adopt strategies at institutional and individual levels is needed to revolutionise our environmental footprint and improve healthcare sustainability. By leveraging evidence from ongoing trials and integrating sustainable practices, our healthcare system can remain resilient against environment-driven challenges and evolving healthcare demands while minimising further impacts of environmental destruction.
Humans ; Climate Change ; Delivery of Health Care ; Singapore ; Conservation of Natural Resources ; Sustainable Development ; Environment

Introduction: This observational study was conducted to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions (KAP) of Malaysians toward participating in clinical trials. It also aimed to look for factors that will influence people’s willingness to participate in trials. We planned and developed future outreach, education tools, and recruitment strategies to increase clinical trial enrolment. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out on a randomly selected sample of 398 Malaysian literate adults. An online questionnaire was created and distributed to the respondents. Descriptive statistics were presented in the form of frequency and percentages. The chi-square test was employed to find the association between independent variables. Results: The majority had good knowledge (61.3%) and high awareness (88.7%) of clinical trials. However, most of them were not willing to take part in a clinical trial if they were assigned to a group of unlicensed drugs (90.2%) or randomly assigned (66.1%). The main reasons for participating in trials were recommendations from doctors (46.5%) and the potential for their own benefit (45.7%). Younger age was positively associated with the necessity and confidentiality of clinical trials. Most respondents indicated negative perceptions towards the safety of clinical trials regardless of demographic variables. Conclusion: We gained a better understanding of Malaysian people who are potential participants in a future clinical trial. These findings could help clinical researchers improve their understanding of the participants and develop effective outreach strategies for clinical trial recruitment and retention.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic spine surgery and conventional pedicle screw fixation in lumbar degenerative disease. We evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic surgery. Methods: This study employed propensity score matching and included 3 groups: robot-assisted mini-open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (robotic surgery, RS), c-arm guided minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (C-arm guidance, CG), and freehand open PLIF (free of guidance, FG) (54 patients each). The mean follow-up period was 2.2 years. The preoperative spine condition was considered. Accuracy was evaluated using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (GRS score) and Babu classification (Babu score). Radiological outcomes included adjacent segmental disease (ASD) and mechanical failure. Clinical outcomes were assessed based on the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 36-item Short Form health survey, and clinical ASD rate. Results: Accuracy was higher in the RS group (p < 0.01) than in other groups. The GRS score was lower in the CG group, whereas the Babu score was lower in the FG group compared with the RS group. No significant differences were observed in radiological and clinical outcomes among the 3 groups. Regression analysis identified preoperative facet degeneration, GRS and Babu scores as significant variables for radiological and clinical ASD. Mechanical failure was influenced by the GRS score and patients’ age. Conclusion This study showed the superior accuracy of robotic spine surgery compared with conventional techniques. When combined with minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery is advantageous with reduced ligament and muscle damage associated with traditional open procedures.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic spine surgery and conventional pedicle screw fixation in lumbar degenerative disease. We evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic surgery. Methods: This study employed propensity score matching and included 3 groups: robot-assisted mini-open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (robotic surgery, RS), c-arm guided minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (C-arm guidance, CG), and freehand open PLIF (free of guidance, FG) (54 patients each). The mean follow-up period was 2.2 years. The preoperative spine condition was considered. Accuracy was evaluated using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (GRS score) and Babu classification (Babu score). Radiological outcomes included adjacent segmental disease (ASD) and mechanical failure. Clinical outcomes were assessed based on the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 36-item Short Form health survey, and clinical ASD rate. Results: Accuracy was higher in the RS group (p < 0.01) than in other groups. The GRS score was lower in the CG group, whereas the Babu score was lower in the FG group compared with the RS group. No significant differences were observed in radiological and clinical outcomes among the 3 groups. Regression analysis identified preoperative facet degeneration, GRS and Babu scores as significant variables for radiological and clinical ASD. Mechanical failure was influenced by the GRS score and patients’ age. Conclusion This study showed the superior accuracy of robotic spine surgery compared with conventional techniques. When combined with minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery is advantageous with reduced ligament and muscle damage associated with traditional open procedures.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic spine surgery and conventional pedicle screw fixation in lumbar degenerative disease. We evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic surgery. Methods: This study employed propensity score matching and included 3 groups: robot-assisted mini-open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (robotic surgery, RS), c-arm guided minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (C-arm guidance, CG), and freehand open PLIF (free of guidance, FG) (54 patients each). The mean follow-up period was 2.2 years. The preoperative spine condition was considered. Accuracy was evaluated using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (GRS score) and Babu classification (Babu score). Radiological outcomes included adjacent segmental disease (ASD) and mechanical failure. Clinical outcomes were assessed based on the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 36-item Short Form health survey, and clinical ASD rate. Results: Accuracy was higher in the RS group (p < 0.01) than in other groups. The GRS score was lower in the CG group, whereas the Babu score was lower in the FG group compared with the RS group. No significant differences were observed in radiological and clinical outcomes among the 3 groups. Regression analysis identified preoperative facet degeneration, GRS and Babu scores as significant variables for radiological and clinical ASD. Mechanical failure was influenced by the GRS score and patients’ age. Conclusion This study showed the superior accuracy of robotic spine surgery compared with conventional techniques. When combined with minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery is advantageous with reduced ligament and muscle damage associated with traditional open procedures.