Medical devices account for approximately 6–10% of national health systems’ carbon footprints. The global use of single-use devices has increased, with implications for health systems’ climate impact. This systematic review aimed to synthesise global evidence on medical device carbon footprints, compare single-use and reusable devices and identify lifecycle carbon hotspots to inform policy and practice.

We conducted a systematic review of carbon footprints of medical devices used in clinical settings, reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines.

We searched MEDLINE and Scopus, in 2022 and updated in 2025, and used citation tracking.

English-language, primary research involving carbon modelling of medical devices used in clinical settings was included, with no date restrictions.

Articles were screened, and data on carbon modelling methods, device footprints and lifecycle hotspots were extracted by two independent reviewers. Findings were synthesised in figures and tables, and narratively in text. The heterogeneity in carbon modelling approaches prevented quantitative synthesis.

Of 5195 articles identified, 59 met inclusion criteria. Life cycle assessment was the main carbon modelling approach, though application and data quality varied. Carbon footprints of 61 devices were assessed, primarily in surgical (16), anaesthetic (8) and endoscopic (8) specialties. Reusable devices consistently had lower lifecycle footprints. Hotspots were production and manufacturing for single-use devices and reprocessing for reusables.

Reusable devices are preferable from a climate perspective, though efforts are needed to reduce reprocessing emissions. Co-ordinated interventions are required: policymakers can enable supportive regulation; manufacturers can improve device design; healthcare facilities can optimise reprocessing; and providers can prioritise reusable device procurement and use.

Most oral cancers in India present in advanced stages and tend to have poor oncological outcomes. Chemotherapy has been associated with improved oncological outcomes in various cancers, but its role in oral cancer is still not well-defined in curative settings beyond radiosensitisation. Despite an excellent response rate, neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials have failed to show an oncological advantage. Earlier studies were limited by their heterogeneous patient population, including all head and neck subsites, and included both inoperable cancer and early-stage operable cases. Due to such patient selection, the intended results were never met. Patients with biologically aggressive diseases (advanced nodal disease) may derive greater benefit from induction chemotherapy (ICT). Therefore, we aim to determine the oncological advantage of adding ICT to oral squamous cell cancer with advanced nodal disease (N2–N3).

The study is an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, with an allocation ratio of 1:1, being conducted at seven leading cancer centres in India. The primary objective is to compare survival outcomes with and without ICT before surgery in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and advanced nodal disease, specifically focusing on 2-year disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary objectives include assessing overall survival (OS), clinical and pathological response rates, treatment compliance, treatment completion rates, adverse events, treatment-related toxicity (using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, V.5.0), quality of life (measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck) and postoperative complications (using the modified Clavien-Dindo classification).

The study population consists of patients with operable OSCC and advanced nodal disease (N2–N3), adequate organ function, aged 18–65 years and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0–2. The treatment arms are the standard arm Surgery arm (SURG), which involves surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy, and the experimental arm (ICT), in which patients will receive two cycles of ICT using either cisplatin, docetaxel and 5-fluorouracil or cisplatin, docetaxel and capecitabine, followed by surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy. The sample size was calculated to detect an HR of 0.67 with 80% power. A total of 184 events are required, and with an accrual rate of 15 patients per month, 300 patients will be recruited. DFS analysis will occur 32 months after the trial begins, and follow-up will continue for 5 years. OS analysis will be conducted when 184 deaths are observed. Taking 10% of the withdrawal of consent, a total of 346 patients need to be included.

This trial aims to establish the potential superiority of ICT or definitively determine its futility in OSCC with advanced nodal disease. A positive outcome could provide practice-changing data, particularly for Indian patients, whereas negative results could halt the use of ICT in this setting, directing research efforts towards more effective treatment strategies.

CTRI/2024/03/064586; NCT06737822; Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) number: AIIMS/IEC/2023/4622 (lead site).