Retained surgical sponges, needles and instruments

Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England

Volumn 95, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 87-92

  Hariharan, D ^a   Lobo, D N ^a  

^a QUEEN S MEDICAL CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Counts; Foreign bodies; Instruments; Prevention; Retained; Sponges; Surgery

Indexed keywords

EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FOREIGN BODY; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; MEDICAL ERROR; NEEDLE; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; SURGICAL SPONGE;

EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FOREIGN BODIES; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MEDICAL ERRORS; NEEDLES; RISK FACTORS; SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS; SURGICAL SPONGES;

EID: 84876300304     PISSN: 00358843     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1308/003588413X13511609957218     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. National Quality Forum. Serious Reportable Events In Healthcare - 2011 Update. Washington DC: NQF: 2011.
2. Department of Health. The 'Never Events' List 2011/12. London: DH; 2011.
3. 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.
4. Berkowitz S, Marshall H, Charles A. Retained intra-abdominal surgical instruments: time to use nascent technology? Am Surg 2007; 73: 1,083-1,085.
5. Dippolito A, Braslow BM, Lombardo G et al. How David beat Goliath: history of physicians fighting frivolous lawsuits. OPUS 12 Scientist 2008; 2: 1-8.
6. Weeks WB, Foster T, Wallace AE, Stalhandske E. Tort claims analysis in the Veterans Health Administration for quality improvement. J Law Med Ethics 2001; 29: 335-345.
7. Jason RS, Chisolm A, Lubetsky HW. Retained surgical sponge simulating a pancreatic mass. J Natl Med Assoc 1979; 71: 501-503.
8. Hyslop JM, Maull KI. Natural history of the retained surgical sponge. South Med J 1982; 75: 657-660.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. National Patient Safety Agency. Surgical Safety Can Be Improved through Better Understanding of Incidents Reported to a National Database. London: NPSA; 2009.
12. Lincourt AE, Harrell A, Cristiano J et al. Retained foreign bodies after surgery. J Surg Res 2007; 138: 170-174.
13. 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.
14. Wan W, Le T, Riskin L, Macario A. Improving safety in the operating room: a systematic literature review of retained surgical sponges. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2009; 22: 207-14.
15. Stawicki SP, Evans DC, Cipolla J et al. Retained surgical foreign bodies: a comprehensive review of risks and preventive strategies. Scand J Surg 2009; 98: 8-17.
16. Zantvoord Y, van der Weiden RM, van Hooff MH. Transmural migration of retained surgical sponges: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2008; 63: 465-471.
17. Sakorafas GH, Sampanis D, Lappas C et al. Retained surgical sponges: what the practicing clinician should know. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2010; 395: 1,001-1,007.
18. Sturdy JH, Baird RM, Gerein AN. Surgical sponges: a cause of granuloma and adhesion formation. Ann Surg 1967; 165: 128-134.
19. Lauwers PR, Van Hee RH. Intraperitoneal gossypibomas: the need to count sponges. World J Surg 2000; 24: 521-527.
20. Choi BI, Kim SH, Yu ES et al. Retained surgical sponge: diagnosis with CT and sonography. Am J Roentgenol 1988; 150: 1,047-1,050.
21. Greenberg CC, Gawande AA. Retained foreign bodies. Adv Surg 2008; 42: 183-191.
22. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses. Perioperative Standards and Recommended Practices. Denver: AORN; 2008.
23. Association for Perioperative Practice. Standards and Recommendations for Safe Perioperative Practice. Harrogate: AfPP; 2007.
24. Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Lipsitz SR et al. The frequency and significance of discrepancies in the surgical count. Ann Surg 2008; 248: 337-341.
25. Christian CK, Gustafson ML, Roth EM et al. A prospective study of patient safety in the operating room. Surgery 2006; 139: 159-173.
26. Adverse Events Reporting System. Minnesota Department of Health. http:// www.health.state.mn.us/patientsafety/ae/ (cited December 2012).
27. Cima RR, Kollengode A, Storsveen AS et al. A multidisciplinary team approach to retained foreign objects. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2009; 35: 123-132.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. Cima RR, Kollengode A, Clark J et al. Using a data-matrix-coded sponge counting system across a surgical practice: impact after 18 months. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2011; 37: 51-58.