Sensitivity of detection of radiofrequency surgical sponges: A prospective, cross-over study

American Journal of Surgery

Volumn 201, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 233-237

  Steelman, Victoria M ^a,b  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Morbid obesity; Operating room; Radio waves; Safety; Safety management; Surgical sponge

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORBID OBESITY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOFREQUENCY; RETAINED INSTRUMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; SUPINE POSITION; SURGICAL SPONGE; TRUNK;

ADULT; AGED; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; FEMALE; FOREIGN BODIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBESITY, MORBID; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIO WAVES; RADIOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE; SURGICAL SPONGES;

EID: 79251471748     PISSN: 00029610     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.05.001     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. R.R. Cima, A. Kollengode, and J. Garnatz Incidence and characteristics of potential and actual retained foreign object events in surgical patients J Am Coll Surg 207 2008 80 87
2. A.A. Gawande, D.M. Studdert, and E.J. Orav Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery N Engl J Med 348 2003 229 235
3. A.E. Lincourt, A. Harrell, and J. Cristiano Retained foreign bodies after surgery J Surg Res 138 2007 170 174
4. C.W. Kaiser, S. Friedman, and K.P. Spurling The retained surgical sponge Ann Surg 224 1996 79 84
5. National Quality Forum updates endorsement of serious reportable events in healthcare [press release] October 13, 2006 National Quality Forum Washington, DC
6. US Department of Health and Human Services Hospital-acquired conditions (present on admission indicator) January 30, 2008 US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Washington, DC
7. N.N. Egorova, A. Moskowitz, and A. Gelijns Managing the prevention of retained surgical instruments: What is the value of counting? Ann Surg 247 2008 13 18
8. C.E. Fabian Electronic tagging of surgical sponges to prevent their accidental retention Surgery 137 2005 298 301
9. A. Macario, D. Morris, and S. Morris Initial clinical evaluation of a handheld device for detecting retained surgical gauze sponges using radiofrequency identification technology Arch Surg 141 2006 659 662
10. J. Li, and J. Fine On sample size for sensitivity and specificity in prospective diagnostic accuracy studies Stat Med 23 2004 2537 2550
11. R.G. Newcombe Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods Stat Med 17 1998 857 872
12. Recommended practices for sponge, sharp, and instrument counts Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses, ed. Standards, recommended practices, and guidelines 2009 ed. 2009 Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses Denver, CO 405 438
13. P.S. Romano, J.J. Geppert, and S. Davies A national profile of patient safety in U.S. hospitals Health Aff (Millwood) 22 2003 154 166
14. Steelman VM, Keele J, Portwood J, et al. Failures and effects of processes for prevention of retained surgical sponges. Presented at: Fifteenth International Scientific Symposium on Improving Quality and Value in Health Care; Orlando, FL; December 7, 2009.
15. C.C. Greenberg, S.E. Regenbogen, and S.R. Lipsitz The frequency and significance of discrepancies in the surgical count Ann Surg 248 2008 337 341
16. L.A. Dossett, R.S. Dittus, and T. Speroff Cost-effectiveness of routine radiographs after emergent open cavity operations Surgery 144 2008 317 321