ReviewCureus2025
Retained Foreign Object Signals a Dangerous Atmosphere in the Operating Room.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The safety of radiofrequency surgical sponges in orthopedic surgery: a validation study in 2,251 arthroplasty procedures.Patient safety in surgery · 2026Article
- Incidence and risk factors for nursing-related intraoperative incidents: A 5-year retrospective study at a Japanese tertiary care hospital.Japan journal of nursing science : JJNS · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A retained foreign object (RFO), also known as an unintentionally retained foreign object (URFO) or a retained surgical item (RSI), is an object retained after skin closure following an invasive procedure. After falls, it is the second most reported sentinel event (SE). Several factors increase the risk of RFO: intraoperative blood loss, longer duration of operation, more sub-procedures, lack of (or incorrect) surgical counts, more than one surgical team, and unexpected intraoperative factors. Unclear policies regarding the counting responsibility, the handling of surgical specimens, the involvement of two surgical teams, and the improper hand-off with a shift of the surgical technician represent other important contributing factors. Technologies, such as bar-coded sponges to aid in accurate counting and radiofrequency identification (RFID)-tagged sponges to provide intraoperative counting and detection, have shown to decrease the incidence of RFOs. However, the adoption of these technologies has been limited. Furthermore, the extremely high percentage of falsely "correct counts" points to the critical role of an unsafe operating ooom (OR) culture in the genesis of RFOs. We argue that the RFO is the dead canary: just as the dead bird signals the presence of lethal gas in the coal mine, the RFO signals the presence of a dangerous culture in the OR. Eliminating RFOs requires a multipronged strategy. OR staff should be reminded that failure can and will happen and they need to remain vigilant. Every team member should be capable and responsible to prevent the compounding of errors. Counting policy should be standardized mandating when, what, how, and by whom surgical counts are performed and documented. When policy is ignored or violated, OR staff should be involved in reviewing and revising the policy. However, commitment to safety requires leadership to provide appropriate resources and to role model core organizational values.
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.