Prevention and diagnosis of retained foreign bodies through the years: Past, present, and future technologies

Technology and Health Care

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 379-386

  Asiyanbola, B ^a   Etienne Cummings, R ^b   Lewi, Jonathan S ^c  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Johns Hopkins University   (United States)

^c DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

automated data identification capture; postoperative retained foreign bodies; X rays

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FOREIGN BODY; HUMAN; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; RADIOGRAPHY; REVIEW; SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; SURGICAL SPONGE;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; FOREIGN BODIES; HUMANS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS; SURGICAL SPONGES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84874380596     PISSN: 09287329     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3233/THC-2012-0687     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Romano PS, Geppert JJ, Davies S. A national profile of patient safety in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22:154-166.
2. Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:229-35.
3. Wilson CP. Foreign bodies left in the abdomen after laparotomy. Gynec Trans. 1884;9:108-12.
4. Crossen HS. Operative gynecology. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1920.
5. Schachner A. Foreign bodies accidentally left in the abdominal cavity. With report of one hundred and fifty-five cases. Ann Surg. 1901;34(5):678-702.
6. Forbes RD, Retained abdominal sponges. West J Surg. 1948;56:588-9.
7. Nelson OA. Sponge count during operation. Am J Surg. 1955;90:680.
8. Fair GL. Foreign body in the abdomen causing obstruction. Am J Surg. 1953;86(4);472-5.
9. Crossen HS, Crossen DF. Foreign bodies left in the abdomen. St. Louis: Mosby; 1940.
10. Edinburgh A. An intra-abdominal foreign body presenting as a colonic tumor: Review of literature and report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 1979;22(5):324-7.
11. Lewison EF. Rayable gauze. Brief communication before the Baltimore City Medical Society. 1941 Jan 3.
12. Lewison EF. Radio opaque thread-a guide to the "lost" sponge. Mod Hosp. 1942;58:67.
13. Lewison EF. Rayable gauze. Ann Surg. 1941;116(2):311-6.
14. Levene G. New designs of radiopaque element for surgical sponges. JAMA. 1951;146:1320.
15. Olnick HM, Weens HS, Rogers JV. Radiological diagnosis of retained surgical sponges. JAMA. 1955;159:1525.
16. Dossett L, Dittus R, Speroff T, May A, Cotton B. Cost-effectiveness of routine radiographs after emergent open cavity operations. Surgery. 2008;144(2):317-21.
17. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson, MS, editors. To err is human-building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000.
18. Sarr MG. Editor's note: retained foreign bodies-why do we still allow them to occur? Surgery. 2005;137(3):304-5.
19. Regenbogen SE. Prevention of retained surgical sponges: Adecision-analytic model predicting relative cost effectiveness. Surgery. 2009;145(5):527-35.
20. Tsai J,Whang G,Mogel GT, Palmer SL. "Rule out foreign body": how to routinely find missing surgical devices through optimization, protocol standardization and physician communication. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:A103-A111.
21. Kalovidouris A, Kehagias D, Moulopoulos L, Gouliamos A, Pentea S, Vlahos L. Abdominal retained surgical sponges: CT appearances. Eur Radiol. 1999;9:1407-10.
22. Rumboldt ZW, Huda JW. All review of portable CT with assessment of a dedicated head CT scanner. Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30:1630-6.
23. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography-an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(22): 2277-84.
24. Kopka L, Fischer U, Gross AJ, Funke M, Oestmann JW, Grabbe E. CT of retained surgical sponges (textilomas): pitfalls in detection and evaluation. J Comput Assist Tomo. 1996;20:919-23.
25. Sugano S, Suzuki T, Iinuma M. Gossypiboma: diagnosis with ultrasonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 1993;21:289-92.
26. Kokubo T, Itai Y, Ohtomo K. Retained surgical sponges: CT and US appearance. Radiology. 1987;165:415-8.
27. http://www.adams1.com/shareware/2612994.pdf. Accessed 3-9-2011.
28. http://www.adams1.com/history.html. Accessed 3-9-2011.
29. Russ FJ, Russ DH. Datamatrix and PDF417 data integrity test [Internet]. Athens (OH): Ohio University; [date unknown; cited 2010 Oct 12]. Available from: http://www.barcodefaq.com/OSU-datamatrix-pdf417.pdf.
30. Greenberg CC, Diaz-Flores R, Lipsitz SR, Regenbogen SE, Mulholland L, Mearn F, et al. Bar-coding surgical sponges to improve safety: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2008;247(4):612-6.
31. Cima RR, Kollengode A, Clark J, Pool S, Weisbrod C, Amstutz GJ, Deschamps C. Using a data-matrix-coded sponge counting system across a surgical practice: Impact after 18 months. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2011;37(2):51-8.
32. RFID Journal. The history of RFID technology. Hauppauge (NY): RFID Journal LLC; [date unknown; cited 2011 Mar 9]. Available from: http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/1338/2.
33. Rogers A, Jones E, Oleynikov D. Radio frequency identification (RFID) applied to surgical sponges. Surg Endosc. 2007; 21(7):1235-7.
34. 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;141:659-62.
35. JAMA. Electromagnetic interference from radio frequency identification inducing potentially hazardous incidents in critical care medical equipment. JAMA. 2008;299(24):2884-90.
36. James JJ, Gilbert FJ, Wallis MG, Gillan MG, Astley SM. Mammographic features of breast cancers at single reading with computer-aided detection and at double reading in a large multicenter prospective trial of computer-aided detection: CADET II. Med Phys. 2006;33(2):320-8.
37. Gedeon T, Arathorn D. Convergence of map seeking circuits. J Math Imaging Vis. 2007;29:235-48.
38. Asiyanbola B, Cheng-Wu C, Lewin J, Etienne-Cummings R. Computer aided detection in the detection of retained foreign bodies. Presented at the Association for Academic Surgery. 2011 Feb 2.
39. TarikU,Gokhan DM, Sunay YM, Mahmut A. Themedico-legal importance of gossypiboma. 4thMediterranean Academy of Forensic Science Meeting, 14-18 October 2008, Antalya-Turkey. Abstract CD of Poster Presentations, 2009: 82-3.
40. Garg M, Aggarwal A. Review Paper A Review of Medicolegal Consequences of Gossypiboma. J Indian Acad Forensic Med, 32(4).
41. Zuffoletto JM. Nurses' vs. surgeons' responsibility for sponge counts. AORN J. 1993;57:1457-1458.
42. Kaiser CW, Friedman S, Spurling KP, Slowick T, Kaiser HA. The retained surgical sponge. Ann Surg 1996; 224(1):79-84.