Surgery
Volume 145, Issue 5 , Pages 527-535 , May 2009

Prevention of retained surgical sponges: A decision-analytic model predicting relative cost-effectiveness

  • Scott E. Regenbogen, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
    • Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Scott E. Regenbogen, MD, MPH, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, GRB-425, Boston, MA 02114.
    • ,
  • Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
    • ,
  • Stephen C. Resch, PhD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Abt Associates, Cambridge, MA
    • ,
  • Anantha Kollengode, PhD, MBA

      Affiliations

    • Office of Quality Management, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
    • ,
  • Robert R. Cima, MD, MA, FACS

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
    • ,
  • Michael J. Zinner, MD, FACS

      Affiliations

    • Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
    • ,
  • Atul A. Gawande, MD, MPH, FACS

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
    • Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA

,Accepted 28 January 2009.

References 

  1. Serious reportable events in healthcare: a consensus report. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum; 2002;
  2. Sentinel event policy and procedures. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: The Joint Commission; 2007;
  3. Medicare program . changes to the hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and fiscal year 2008 Rates. Fed Reg. 2007;72:47179–47228
  4. Recommended practices for sponge, sharp and instrument counts. Denver, CO: Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses; 2004;
  5. 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
  6. Botet del Castillo FX, Lopez S, Reyes G, et al. Diagnosis of retained abdominal gauze swabs. Br J Surg. 1995;82:227–228
  7. Bani-Hani KE, Gharaibeh KA, Yaghan RJ. Retained surgical sponges (gossypiboma). Asian Journal of Surgery/Asian Surgical Association. 2005;28:109–115
  8. Christian CK, Gustafson ML, Roth EM, et al. A prospective study of patient safety in the operating room. Surgery. 2006;139:159–173
  9. Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ, Brennan TA, Zinner MJ. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:229–235
  10. Cima RR, Kollengode A, Garnatz J, Storsveen A, Weisbrod C, Deschamps C. Incidence and characteristics of potential and actual retained foreign object events in surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:80–87
  11. Kaiser CW, Friedman S, Spurling KP, Slowick T, Kaiser HA. The retained surgical sponge. Ann Surg. 1996;224:79–84
  12. Lincourt AE, Harrell A, Cristiano J, Sechrist C, Kercher K, Heniford BT. Retained foreign bodies after surgery. J Surg Res. 2007;138:170–174
  13. Nguyen NT, Wilson SE, Wolfe BM. Rationale for laparoscopic gastric bypass. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;200:621–629
  14. Devgan L, Waters H, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA. A cost analysis of intra-operative x-ray screening for retained surgical foreign bodies. J Surg Res. 2007;137:186
  15. Revesz G, Siddiqi TS, Buchheit WA, Bonitatibus M. Detection of retained surgical sponges. Radiology. 1983;149:411–413
  16. Ponrartana S, Coakley FV, Yeh BM, et al. Accuracy of plain abdominal radiographs in the detection of retained surgical needles in the peritoneal cavity. Ann Surg. 2008;247:8–12
  17. Macilquham MD, Riley RG, Grossberg P. Identifying lost surgical needles using radiographic techniques. AORN J. 2003;78:73–78
  18. Greenberg CC, Gawande AA. Beyond counting: current evidence on the problem of retaining foreign bodies in surgery?. Ann Surg. 2008;247:19–20
  19. Berkowitz S, Marshall H, Charles A. Retained intra-abdominal surgical instruments: time to use nascent technology?. Am Surg. 2007;73:1083–1085
  20. Dierks MM, Christian CK, Roth EM, Sheridan TB. Healthcare safety: the impact of disabling “safety” protocols. IEEE Transact. 2004;34:693–698
  21. Beyea SC. Counting instruments and sponges. AORN J. 2003;78:290
  22. Fabian CE. Electronic tagging of surgical sponges to prevent their accidental retention. Surgery. 2005;137:298–301
  23. Rattner DW. Invited commentary: making patient safety automatic. Surgery. 2005;137:302–303
  24. Sarr MG. Editor's note: retained foreign bodies—why do we still allow them to occur?. Surgery. 2005;137:304–305
  25. 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
  26. Schonleben K, Strobel A, Schonleben F, Hoffmann A. [Retained foreign bodies from the surgical point of view]. Der Chirurg. Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen. 2007;78:7–12
  27. Lincourt AE, Harrell A, Cristiano J, Sechrist C, Kercher K, Todd Heniford B. Retained foreign bodies after surgery. J Surg Res. 2007;138:170–174
  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. 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
  30. Romano PS, Geppert JJ, Davies S, Miller MR, Elixhauser A, McDonald KM. A national profile of patient safety in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Project Hope). 2003;22:154–166
  31. Zhan C, Miller MR. Excess length of stay, charges, and mortality attributable to medical injuries during hospitalization. JAMA. 2003;290:1868–1874
  32. Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Lipsitz SR, Diaz-Flores R, Gawande AA. The frequency and significance of discrepancies in the surgical count. Ann Surg. 2008;248:337–341
  33. Forgue E, Aimes A. Les “Pieges” de la Chirurgie. Paris: Masson et Cie; 1939;
  34. Uppot RN, Sahani DV, Hahn PF, Gervais D, Mueller PR. Impact of obesity on medical imaging and image-guided intervention. AJR. 2007;188:433–440
  35. Khuri SF, Henderson WG, Daley J, et al. The patient safety in surgery study: background, study design, and patient populations. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:1089–1102
  36. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1339–1341
  37. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV, Elstein AS, et al. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1980;
  38. Ward WJ, Spragens L, Smithson K. Building the business case for clinical quality. Healthcare Financial Management. 2006:December;1–6
  39. Dexter F, Macario A. Decrease in case duration required to complete an additional case during regularly scheduled hours in an operating room suite: a computer simulation study. Anesth Analg. 1999;88:72–76

 S.E.R. was supported by Kirschstein National Research Service Award T32-HS000020 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Drs Greenberg and Gawande have received research grant support from SurgiCount Medical, Temecula, CA. The funding agencies were not involved in the conduct, analysis, or composition of this study, and were not given the opportunity to approve or edit the manuscript before submission.

PII: S0039-6060(09)00073-7

doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.01.011

Surgery
Volume 145, Issue 5 , Pages 527-535 , May 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution