ArticlePatient safety in surgery2023
Multiphase preclinical assessment of a novel device to locate unintentionally retained surgical sharps: a proof-of-concept study.
Article in Patient safety in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Streamlining surgical instrument counting: a matrixed multiple case study on the fidelity of weighing systems in the operating room.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence model for automated surgical instrument detection and counting: an experimental proof-of-concept study.Patient safety in surgery · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRetained surgical sharps (RSS) is a "never event" that is preventable but may still occur despite of correct count and negative X-ray. This study assesses the feasibility of a novel device ("Melzi Sharps Finder®" or MSF) in effective detection of RSS.
methodsThe first study consisted of determination of the presence of RSS or identification of RSS in an ex-vivo model (a container with hay in a laparoscopic trainer box). The second study consisted of determining presence of RSS in an in-vivo model (laparoscopy in live adult Yorkshire pigs) with 3 groups: C-arm, C-arm with MSF and MSF. The third study used similar apparatus though with laparotomy and included 2 groups: manual search and MSF.
resultsIn the first study, the MSF group had a higher rate of identification of a needle and decreased time to locate a needle versus control (98.1% vs. 22.0%, p < 0.001; 1.64 min ± 1.12vs. 3.34 min ± 1.28, p < 0.001). It also had increased accuracy of determining the presence of a needle and decreased time to reach this decision (100% vs. 58.8%, p < 0.001; 1.69 min ± 1.43 vs. 4.89 min ± 0.63, p < 0.001). In-the second study, the accuracy of determining the presence of a needle and time to reach this decision were comparable in each group (88.9% vs. 100% vs. 84.5%, p < 0.49; 2.2 min ± 2.2 vs. 2.7 min ± 2.1vs. 2.8 min ± 1.7, p = 0.68). In the third study, MSF group had higher accuracy in determining the presence of a needle and decreased time to reach this decision than the control (97.0% vs. 46.7%, p < 0.001; 2.0 min ± 1.5 vs. 3.9 min ± 1.4; p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that MSF use was independently associated with an accurate determination of the presence of a needle (OR 12.1, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe use of MSF in this study's RSS models facilitated the determination of presence and localization of RSS as shown by the increased rate of identification of a needle, decreased time to identification and higher accuracy in determining the presence of a needle. This device may be used in conjunction with radiography as it gives live visual and auditory feedback for users during the search for RSS.
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.