Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
World Journal of Surgery
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 7/2011

Open Access 01-07-2011

Retained Surgical Items and Minimally Invasive Surgery

Author: Verna C. Gibbs

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 7/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

A retained surgical item is a surgical patient safety problem. Early reports have focused on the epidemiology of retained-item cases and the identification of patient risk factors for retention. We now know that retention has very little to do with patient characteristics and everything to do with operating room culture. It is a perception that minimally invasive procedures are safer with regard to the risk of retention. Minimally invasive surgery is still an operation where an incision is made and surgical tools are placed inside of patients, so these cases are not immune to the problem of inadvertent retention. Retained surgical items occur because of problems with multi-stakeholder operating room practices and problems in communication. The prevention of retained surgical items will therefore require practice change, knowledge, and shared information between all perioperative personnel.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses (2010) Recommended practices for prevention of retained surgical items. In: Perioperative standards and recommended practices. AORN, Denver, CO. http://​www.​aorn.​org/​psrp. Accessed 7 Nov 2010
7.
Gibbs VC, Coakley FD, Reines HD (2007) Preventable errors in the operating room: retained foreign bodies after surgery–—part 1. Curr Probl Surg 44:281–337PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zantvoord Y, van der Weiden RF, van Hooff MH (2008) Transmural migration of retained surgical sponges: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 633:465–471CrossRef
9.
Stawicki SP, Evans DC, Cipolla J et al (2009) Retained surgical foreign bodies: a comprehensive review of risks and preventive strategies. Scand J Surg 98:8–17PubMed
10.
11.
Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ et al (2003) Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. N Engl J Med 348:229–235PubMedCrossRef
12.
Lincourt AE, Harrell A, Cristiano J et al (2007) Retained foreign bodies after surgery. J Surg Res 138:170–174PubMedCrossRef
13.
Wan W, Le T, Riskin L, Macario A (2009) Improving safety in the operating room: a systematic literature review of retained surgical sponges. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 22:207–214PubMedCrossRef
14.
McIntyre LK, Jurkovich GJ, Gunn MD, Maier RV (2010) Gossypiboma: tales of lost sponges and lessons learned. Arch Surg 145:770–775PubMedCrossRef
15.
Cima RR, Kollengode A, Storsveen AA et al (2009) A multidisciplinary team approach to retained foreign objects. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 35:123–132PubMed
16.
Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR et al (2009) A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 360:491–499PubMedCrossRef
17.
18.
Huntington TR, Klomp GR (1995) Retained staples as a cause of mechanical small-bowel obstruction. Surg Endosc 9:353–354PubMedCrossRef
19.
Mendez LE, Medina C (1997) Late complication of laparoscopic salpingoophorectomy: retained foreign body presenting as an acute abdomen. JSLS 1:79–81PubMed
20.
Soyer P, Valleur P (2008) Retained surgical needle after laparoscopic sacrocolporectopexy. Clin Radiol 63:688–690PubMedCrossRef
21.
Cima RR, Kollengode A, Garnatz J et al (2008) Incidence and characteristics of potential and actual retained foreign object events in surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg 207:80–87PubMedCrossRef
22.
Kiernan F, Joyce M, Byrnes CK et al (2008) Gossypiboma: a case report and review of the literature. Ir J Med Sci 177:389–391PubMedCrossRef
23.
Riley R, Manias E, Polglase A (2006) Governing the surgical count through communication interactions: implications for patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care 15:369–374PubMedCrossRef
24.
Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Lipsitz SR et al (2008) The frequency and significance of discrepancies in the surgical count. Ann Surg 248:337–341PubMedCrossRef
25.
Jackson S, Brady S (2008) Counting difficulties: retained instruments, sponges and needles. AORN J 87:315–321PubMedCrossRef
26.
Rowlands A, Steeves R (2010) Incorrect surgical counts: a qualitative analysis. AORN J 92:410–419PubMedCrossRef
27.
Gibbs VC (2005) Patient safety practices in the operating room: correct site surgery and nothing left behind. Surg Clin North Am 85:1307–1319PubMedCrossRef
28.
Whang G, Mogel GT, Tsai J, Palmer SL (2009) Left behind:unintentionally retained surgically placed foreign bodies and how to reduce their incidence—pictorial review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:S79–S89PubMedCrossRef
29.
O’Connor AR, Coakley FV, Meng MV, Eberhardt S (2003) Imaging of retained surgical sponges in the abdomen and pelvis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:481–489PubMed
30.
Edel EM (2010) Increasing patient safety and surgical team communication by using a count/time out board. AORN J 92:420–424PubMedCrossRef
31.
Kleinpeter SJ, Kline RC, Finan MA (1997) Retained surgical needle in the perineum. Report of a case with a novel method of search and rescue. J Reprod Med 42:303–305PubMed
32.
Ozgun MT, Batukan C, Basbug M, Atakul T (2008) Management of a broken needle: retained in the first caesarean section, removed during the second abdominal delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol 28:653–655PubMedCrossRef
33.
Karahasanoglu T, Unal E, Memisoglu K et al (2004) Laparoscopic removal of a retained surgical instrument. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 14:241–243
34.
Rodrigues D, Perez NE, Hammer PM, Webber JD (2006) Laparoscopic removal of a retained intra-abdominal ribbon malleable retractor after 14 years. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 16:369–371CrossRef
35.
Singh R, Mathur RK, Patidar S, Tapkire R (2004) Gossypiboma: its laparoscopic diagnosis and removal. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 14:304–305PubMedCrossRef
36.
Ibrahim IM (1995) Retained surgical sponge. Surg Endosc 9:709–710PubMed
37.
Yuen PM, Rogers MS, Chang AM (1994) Laparoscopic removal of retained surgical gauze after vaginal hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 57:209–210PubMedCrossRef
38.
Childers JM, Caplinger P (1993) Laparoscopic retrieval of a retained surgical sponge: a case report. Surg Laparosc Endosc 3:135–138PubMed
39.
Chin EH, Hazzan D, Herron DM, Salky B (2007) Laparoscopic retrieval of intraabdominal foreign bodies. Surg Endosc 21:1457PubMedCrossRef
40.
Bhansali M, Patankar S, Dobhada S (2006) Laparoscopic management of a retained heavily encrusted ureteral stent. Int J Urol 13:1141–1143PubMedCrossRef
41.
Bharathan R, Dexter S, Hanson M (2009) Laparoscopic retrieval of retained Redivac drain fragment. J Obstet Gynaecol 29:263–264PubMedCrossRef
42.
Dutta R, Kumar A, Das CJ, Jindal T (2010) Emergency video-assisted thoracoscopic foreign body removal and decortication of lung after chest trauma. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 58:155–158PubMedCrossRef
43.
44.
45.
46.
Macario A, Morris D, Morris S (2006) Initial clinical evaluation of a handheld device for detecting retained surgical gauze sponges using radiofrequency identification technology. Arch Surg 141:659–662PubMedCrossRef
47.
Greenberg CC, Diaz-Flores R, Lipsitz SR et al (2008) Bar-coding surgical sponges to improve safety: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 247:612–616PubMedCrossRef
48.
Cima RR, Kollengode A, Clark J, Pool S et al. (2010) Evaluation and implementation of a bar-coded sponge counting system: impact on retained sponges after one year. Presented at American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress, Washington DC, October 3–7, 2010
49.
Rupp CC, Kim HJ, Kagarise MJ (2010) Effectiveness of radio-frequency surgical detection system to promote patient patient safety during an operative procedure by improving the process by which doctors and nurses track sponges prior to wound closure. Presented at American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress, Washington DC, October 3–7, 2010
50.
Lauwers PR, Van Hee RH (2000) Intraperitoneal gossypibomas: the need to count sponges. World J Surg 24:521–527PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Retained Surgical Items and Minimally Invasive Surgery
Author
Verna C. Gibbs
Publication date
01-07-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 7/2011
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-011-1060-4

Other articles of this Issue 7/2011

World Journal of Surgery 7/2011 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Selenium Deficiency a Factor in Endemic Goiter Persistence in Sub-Saharan Africa

OriginalPaper

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: The Evolution and Technique of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Esophageal Cancer

OriginalPaper

A Collaborative Transdisciplinary “Geriatric Surgery Service” Ensures Consistent Successful Outcomes in Elderly Colorectal Surgery Patients

OriginalPaper

The Evolution of Minimally Invasive Bariatric Surgery

OriginalPaper

Outcome after Open Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Patients >80 Years Old: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OriginalPaper

Retrospective Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Endovenous Laser and Saphenous Vein-sparing Surgery for Treatment of Varicose Veins