ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2022
Implications of equipment failure occurring during surgery.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preventing Improperly Reprocessed Instruments.AORN journal · 2026Article
- The education of the orthopaedic surgeon's hand with the tool.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Systematic review of 3D-printed surgical devices for austere environments: an evaluation guideline.Frontiers in medical technology · 2026Review
- Enhancing surgical safety through surgical instruments repair technicians' training: recent experience from Nigeria.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Application study of surgical instruments information management system in sports medicine specialty.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFew formal studies have been performed investigating the frequency of equipment failure during surgery. Surgeons are unable to operate without the plethora of instruments and equipment surrounding them in the operating theatre. As with any mechanical component, instruments and equipment are subject to time- and use-dependent degradation in their performance. Yet no formal requirements exist for the routine inspection or maintenance of instruments. Owing to this lack of information regarding equipment failure we undertook the first investigation of intraoperative equipment malfunction occurring during cardiac surgical procedures.
methodsOver a 12-month period cardiac surgeons were required to report equipment malfunction during each procedure. Operating theatre equipment was divided into three categories broadly based on equipment portability and function: group 1, theatre infrastructure and components; group 2, large medical equipment; and group 3, surgical instruments.
resultsIn a highly significant proportion of operations performed (92%) there was an issue with equipment. The most common issues occurred in group 3 with fine surgical instrument malfunctions; most commonly worn-out needle holders and blunt scissors. Theatre infrastructure and large medical equipment failures (groups 1 and 2) resulted in the cancellation of four cases. Some intraoperative instrument failures were potentially catastrophic.
conclusionsThe incidence of equipment failure during cardiac surgery is unacceptably high. In some instances, cases were cancelled and revenue lost owing to equipment malfunction. A balance between the safety and quality of equipment and cost effectiveness is required. These findings suggest that surgical instruments warrant an annual compulsory inspection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.