Improving safety in the operating room: A systematic literature review of retained surgical sponges

Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 207-214

  Wan, Wenshuai ^a   Le, Thuan ^b   Riskin, Loren ^c   Macario, Alex ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Gossypiboma; Patient safety; Retained sponge; Surgery

Indexed keywords

ABDOMEN; ABSCESS; ADHESION; AGE DISTRIBUTION; CALCIFICATION; COCHRANE LIBRARY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EMERGENCY; FEVER; FISTULA; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MASS; MEDLINE; OPERATING ROOM; PAIN; PATIENT SAFETY; PELVIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETAINED INSTRUMENT; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURGICAL SPONGE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; THORAX; ULTRASOUND;

ABDOMEN; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CHILD; FEMALE; FOREIGN BODIES; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PELVIS; RISK FACTORS; SURGICAL SPONGES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 68049089962     PISSN: 09527907     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ACO.0b013e328324f82d     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. Bani-Hani KE, Gharaibeh KA, Yaghan RJ. Retained surgical sponges (gossypiboma). Asian J Surg 2005; 28:109-115.
2. Wilson C. Foreign bodies left in the abdomen after laparotomy. Gynecol Tr 1884; 9:109-112.
3. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system.. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
4. Guide to Patient Safety Indicators, Ver. 3.1. In: AHRQ Quality Indicators. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007.
5. Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ, et al. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:229-235.
6. Hyslop JW, Maull KI. Natural history of the retained surgical sponge. South Med J 1982; 75:657-660.
7. Rappaport W, Haynes K. The retained surgical sponge following intraabdominal surgery. A continuing problem. Arch Surg 1990; 125:405-407.
8. Cima RR, Kollengode A, Garnatz J, et al. Incidence and characteristics of potential and actual retained foreign object events in surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg 2008; 207:80-87. Previous reports have been largely based on insurance claims. This study examines all procedures at a tertiary care institute during 4 years. Postoperative radiographs discovered one incident per 5500 operations, suggesting that retained foreign bodies may occur more frequently than expected from literature.
9. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126:376-380.
10. Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, et al. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg 2001; 92:700-709.
11. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in healthcare from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48:167-171.
12. van Tulder MW, Assendelft WJ, Koes BW, et al. Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for Spinal Disorders. Spine 1997; 22:2323-2330.
13. Shin DH, Tsai CS, Kupin TH, et al. Retained cellulose sponge after trabeculectomy with adjunctive subconjunctival mitomycin C. Am J Ophthalmol 1994; 118:111-112.
14. Friedman J, Whitecloud TS 3rd. Lumbar cauda equina syndrome associated with the use of gelfoam: case report. Spine 2001; 26:E485-E487.
15. Al-Shahwan S, Edward DP. Foreign body granulomas secondary to retained sponge fragment following mitomycin C trabeculectomy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005; 243:178-181.
16. Taylor FH, Zollinger RW 2nd, Edgerton TA, et al. Intrapulmonary foreign body: sponge retained for 43 years. J Thorac Imaging 1994; 9:56-59.
17. Nomori H, Horio H, Hasegawa T, et al. Retained sponge after thoracotomy that mimicked aspergilloma. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 61:1535-1536.
18. El Khoury M, Mignon F, Tardivon A, et al. Retained surgical sponge or gossypiboma of the breast. Eur J Radiol 2002; 42:58-61.
19. Manikyam SR, Gupta V, Gupta R, et al. Retained surgical sponge presenting as a gastric outlet obstruction and duodeno-ileo-colic fistula: report of a case. Surg Today 2002; 32:426-428.
20. Ghersin E, Keidar Z, Brook OR, et al. A new pitfall on abdominal PET/CT: a retained surgical sponge. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004; 28:839-841.
21. Botet del Castillo FX, Lopez S, Reyes G, et al. Diagnosis of retained abdominal gauze swabs. Br J Surg 1995; 82:227-228.
22. O'Connor AR, Coakley FV, Meng MV, et al. Imaging of retained surgical sponges in the abdomen and pelvis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180:481-489.
23. Scott WW, Beall DP, Wheeler PS. The retained intrapericardial sponge: value of the lateral chest radiograph. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:595-597.
24. McKillop G, Reid JH. Retained surgical swab misinterpreted as epicardial pacing wire on chest X ray. Heart 1996; 75:342.
25. Ramdass M, Maharaj D, Naraynsingh V. Gossypiboma: a diagnostic dilemma. Internet J Radiol 2001; 2.
26. Jebbin JM, Adotey NJ. Gossypiboma: a report of 2 cases. Niger J Med 2006; 15:87-88.
27. Gencosmanoglu R, Inceoglu R. An unusual cause of small bowel obstruction: gossypiboma - case report. BMC Surg 2003; 3:6.
28. Abdul-Karim FW, Benevenia J, Pathria MN, et al. Case report 736: Retained surgical sponge (gossypiboma) with a foreign body reaction and remote and organizing hematoma. Skeletal Radiol 1992; 21:466-469.
29. Choi BI, Kim SH, Yu ES, et al. Retained surgical sponge: diagnosis with CT and sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 150:1047-1050.
30. Suwatanapongched T, Boonkasem S, Sathianpitayakul E, et al. Intrathoracic gossypiboma: radiographic and CT findings. Br J Radiol 2005; 78:851-853.
31. Sheehan RE, Sheppard MN, Hansell DM. Retained intrathoracic surgical swab: CT appearances. J Thorac Imaging 2000; 15:61-64.
32. Patel AM, Trastek VF, Coles DT. Gossypibomas mimicking echinococcal cyst disease of the lung. Chest 1994; 105:284-285.
33. Buy JN, Hubert C, Ghossain MA, et al. Computed tomography of retained abdominal sponges and towels. Gastrointest Radiol 1989; 14:41-45.
34. Lo CP, Hsu CC, Chang TH. Gossypiboma of the leg: MR imaging characteristics. A case report. Korean J Radiol 2003; 4:191-193.
35. Tacyildiz I, Aldemir M. The mistakes of surgeons: 'gossypiboma'. Acta Chir Belg 2004; 104:71-75.
36. Study offers evidence on items left behind during surgical cases. OR Manager 2003; 19:10-11.
37. Minnesota takes extra steps on wrong surgery, retained items. OR Manager 2005; 2118-20.
38. Egorova NN, Moskowitz A, Gelijns A, et al. Managing the prevention of retained surgical instruments: what is the value of counting? Ann Surg 2008; 247:13-18. This study quantifies the diagnostic characteristics of counting, providing parameters for future studies, and provides the first cost analysis of miscounts. Each count discrepancy, studied in a cohort of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass, increased operating room cost by US$932.
39. Kaiser CW, Friedman S, Spurling KP, et al. The retained surgical sponge. Ann Surg 1996; 224:79-84.
40. Zbar AP, Agrawal A, Saeed IT, et al. Gossypiboma revisited: a case report and review of the literature. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1998; 43:417-418.
41. Rafique M. Vesical gossypiboma. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2003; 13:293-295.
42. Singh R, Mathur RK, Patidar S, Tapkire R. Gossypiboma: its laparoscopic diagnosis and removal. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2004; 14:304-305.
43. Lincourt AE, Harrell A, Cristiano J, et al. Retained foreign bodies after surgery. J Surg Res 2007; 138:170-174.
44. Ibrahim IM. Retained surgical sponge. Surg Endosc 1995; 9:709-710.
45. Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Lipsitz SR, et al. The frequency and significance of discrepancies in the surgical count. Ann Surg 2008; 248:337-341. Trained physician-observers documented counting discrepancies during surgery. Counting activities after personnel changes were more likely to involve a discrepancy.
46. Ahmad G, Attiq-ur-Rehman S, Anjum MZ. Retained sponge after abdominal surgery. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2003; 13:640-643.
47. Human factors, education help sharpen the OR count process. OR Manager 2006; 22:1, 7, 9 passim.
48. Christian CK, Gustafson ML, Roth EM, et al. A prospective study of patient safety in the operating room. Surgery 2006; 139:159-173.
49. Number of retained objects falls after count practices reinforced. ORManager 2007; 23:8.
50. Jackson S, Brady S. Counting difficulties: retained instruments, sponges, and needles. AORN J 2008; 87:315-321.
51. Brown J, Feather D. Surgical equipment and materials left in patients. Br J Perioper Nurs 2005; 15:259-262; 264-255.
52. Gotwald TF, Sprinzl GM, Fischer H, et al. Retained packing gauze in the ethmoidal sinuses after endonasal sinus surgery: CT and surgical appearances. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177:1487-1489.
53. Garel L, Montagne JP, Balquet P, et al. An unusual iatrogenic bilio-bronchial fistula. Pediatr Radiol 1980; 9:48-49.
54. Fiorelli C, Menghetti I, Trippitelli A, et al. Renal pseudotumors caused by retained pararenal surgical sponges. Rays 1985; 10:49-52.
55. Murdock D. Trauma: when there's no time to count. AORN J 2008; 87:322-328. A review examines the risk of unintentionally retained foreign objects during trauma when the perioperative team may have less than 10 min to prepare the room and surgical counts may be omitted.
56. Gibbs VC, Coakley FD, Reines HD. Preventable errors in the operating room: retained foreign bodies after surgery - part I. Curr Probl Surg 2007; 44:281-337.
57. Yildirim S, Tarim A, Nursal TZ, et al. Retained surgical sponge (gossypiboma) after intraabdominal or retroperitoneal surgery: 14 cases treated at a single center. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2006; 391:390-395.
58. Dossett LA, Dittus RS, Speroff T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of routine radiographs after emergent open cavity operations. Surgery 2008; 144:317-321. Authors use a decision-analysis model to assess cost-effectiveness of routine intraoperative radiographs after emergency operations. Additional cost of radiographs is compared with institutional costs and legal fees associated with retained foreign bodies.
59. Zhan C, Miller MR. Excess length of stay, charges, and mortality attributable to medical injuries during hospitalization. JAMA 2003; 290:1868-1874.
60. Kaiser CW, Slowick T, Spurling KP, et al. Retained foreign bodies. J Trauma 1997; 43:107-111.
61. Reason J. Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Limited; 1997.
62. AORN Recommended Practices Committee. Recommended practices for sponge, sharps, and instrument counts. AORN J 2006; 83:418, 421-426, 429-433.
63. Best practices for preventing a retained foreign body. AORN J 2006; 84:S30-S36.
64. Le Neel JC, De Cussac JB, Dupas B, et al. Textiloma. Apropos of 25 cases and review of the literature. Chirurgie 1994; 120:272-276; discussion 276-277.
65. Gibbs VC. Patient safety practices in the operating room: correct-site surgery and nothing left behind. Surg Clin North Am 2005; 85:1307-1319; xiii.
66. Gosbee J, Anderson T. Human factors engineering design demonstrations can enlighten your RCA team. Qual Saf Healthcare 2003; 12:119-121.
67. Gosbee J. Human factors engineering and patient safety.Qual Saf Healthcare 2002; 11:352-354.
68. Fabian CE. Electronic tagging of surgical sponges to prevent their accidental retention. Surgery 2005; 137:298-301.
69. Macario A, Morris D, Morris S. Initial clinical evaluation of a handheld device for detecting retained surgical gauze sponges using radiofrequency identification technology. Arch Surg 2006; 141:659-662.
70. Greenberg CC, Diaz-Flores R, Lipsitz SR, et al. Bar-coding surgical sponges to improve safety: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2008; 247:612-616. This study is the first clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficiency of using barcoded sponges. Count discrepancies are used as a proxy for increased risk of unintentionally retained foreign objects. Although the bar-code system detected more counting discrepancies than the traditional protocol, the system also introduced new technical difficulties and required more time.