Surgery
Volume 147, Issue 1 , Pages 98-106, January 2010

Scalpel safety in the operative setting: A systematic review

  • Amber M. Watt, BMedSc, GDPH

      Affiliations

    • Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures–Surgical (ASERNIP-S), Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, Australia
  • ,
  • Michael Patkin, MBBS, FRACS

      Affiliations

    • Discipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    • Discipline of Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville South, Australia
  • ,
  • Michael J. Sinnott, MBBS, FACEM, FRACP

      Affiliations

    • Emergency Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Australia
  • ,
  • Robert J. Black, FRACS

      Affiliations

    • Department of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, Mater Hospital, South Brisbane, Australia
  • ,
  • Guy J. Maddern, PhD, FRACS

      Affiliations

    • Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures–Surgical (ASERNIP-S), Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, Australia
    • Discipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    • Discipline of Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville South, Australia
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Guy J. Maddern, PhD, FRACS, P.O. Box 553, Stepney SA 5069, Australia.

Accepted 20 August 2009. published online 14 October 2009.

Background

The complex environment of the operative setting provides multiple opportunities for health care workers to sustain scalpel injuries; scalpels are the second most frequent source of sharps injuries in this setting. Little evidence has been published detailing the effectiveness of proposed safety procedures and devices.

Methods

A systematic search strategy was used to identify relevant studies. Studies were included based on the application of a predetermined protocol, an independent assessment by 2 reviewers, and a consensus decision. Nineteen articles formed the evidence base for this review.

Results

Little high-level evidence was available. The results of studies reporting on 5 different devices/procedures were identified: the use of cut-resistant gloves/liners decreased the number of glove perforations in comparison with double latex gloves alone but lessened the wearer's dexterity and tactile sensation; the benefit derived from the use of the hands-free passing technique seemed equivocal; “sharpless surgery” was found to be feasible; a single-handed blade remover prevented at least as many injuries as a safety scalpel; and some shoe materials provided superior foot protection.

Conclusion

The lack of available evidence highlights the need for the generation of a methodologically rigorous, clinically relevant, and statistically valid body of primary research in this area to support appropriate and effective safety interventions.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supported by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing and the South Australian Department of Health.

PII: S0039-6060(09)00497-8

doi:10.1016/j.surg.2009.08.001

Surgery
Volume 147, Issue 1 , Pages 98-106, January 2010