Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34253246›Full record

ReviewPatient safety in surgery2021

Risk factors and preventive strategies for unintentionally retained surgical sharps: a systematic review.

Samuel Weprin, Fabio Crocerossa, Dielle Meyer, Kaitlyn Maddra, David Valancy, Reginald Osardu, Hae Sung Kang, Robert H Moore, Umberto Carbonara, Fernando J Kim and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patient safety in surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Surgical Counts.AORN journal · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Gossypiboma-associated sarcomas in five cases.The Journal of small animal practice · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A Patient With Pain After the Dentist.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2025
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Samuel WeprinDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, 23298-0118, USA.
Fabio CrocerossaDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, 23298-0118, USA.
Dielle MeyerDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, 23298-0118, USA.
Kaitlyn MaddraDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, 23298-0118, USA.
David ValancyDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, 23298-0118, USA.
Reginald OsarduDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, 23298-0118, USA.
Hae Sung KangDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, 23298-0118, USA.
Robert H MooreDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, 23298-0118, USA.
Umberto CarbonaraDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, 23298-0118, USA.
Fernando J KimDivision of Urology Denver Health Medical Center and University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Colorado, Denver, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6773-5891
Riccardo AutorinoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, 23298-0118, USA. ricautor@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA retained surgical item (RSI) is defined as a never-event and can have drastic consequences on patient, provider, and hospital. However, despite increased efforts, RSI events remain the number one sentinel event each year. Hard foreign bodies (e.g. surgical sharps) have experienced a relative increase in total RSI events over the past decade. Despite this, there is a lack of literature directed towards this category of RSI event. Here we provide a systematic review that focuses on hard RSIs and their unique challenges, impact, and strategies for prevention and management.

methodsMultiple systematic reviews on hard RSI events were performed and reported using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) guidelines. Database searches were limited to the last 10 years and included surgical "sharps," a term encompassing needles, blades, instruments, wires, and fragments. Separate systematic review was performed for each subset of "sharps". Reviewers applied reciprocal synthesis and refutational synthesis to summarize the evidence and create a qualitative overview.

resultsIncreased vigilance and improved counting are not enough to eliminate hard RSI events. The accurate reporting of all RSI events and near miss events is a critical step in determining ways to prevent RSI events. The implementation of new technologies, such as barcode or RFID labelling, has been shown to improve patient safety, patient outcomes, and to reduce costs associated with retained soft items, while magnetic retrieval devices, sharp detectors and computer-assisted detection systems appear to be promising tools for increasing the success of metallic RSI recovery.

conclusionThe entire healthcare system is negatively impacted by a RSI event. A proactive multimodal approach that focuses on improving team communication and institutional support system, standardizing reports and implementing new technologies is the most effective way to improve the management and prevention of RSI events.

Indexed as

DetectionForeign objectManagementRetained surgical itemSurgical sharps

Identifiers

PMID34253246
PMCPMC8276389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.