Radio-frequency identification of surgical sponges in the abdominal cavity of pigs

Abstract

BackgroundCounting the sponges is an important step in surgical procedures. A miscount may impact the patient's health, and it also has legal implications for the surgeon. This is an experimental study evaluating radio-frequency technology used in the perioperative period to identify surgical sponges left in the peritoneal cavity of swine.MethodsRadio-frequency labeled-disc identification tags were sewn into 40 surgical towels. Twenty labels had the ability to emit radio-frequency waves, and 20 labels were inert to radio-frequency identification. Twenty adult pigs that underwent laparotomy and randomly received two surgical sponges were scanned by a radio-frequency identification antenna.ResultsThis method presented a positive predictive value of 100% and 100% specificity and sensitivity, as all of the tagged surgical sponges were detected.ConclusionRadio-frequency identification has been proved to be a useful method for the identification of surgical sponges within the abdominal cavities of swine.

The effectiveness of radiofrequency scanning technology in preventing retained surgical items: An integrative review

“…Of the 15 selected studies, eight studies were conducted in the USA ( n = 8) (Inaba et al, 2016; Primiano et al, 2020; Rupp et al, 2012; Steelman, 2011; Steelman & Alasagheirin, 2012; Steelman et al, 2019; Williams et al, 2014, 2016), followed by two studies conducted in Germany ( n = 2) (Kranzfelder et al, 2012, 2013), two in Brazil ( n = 2) (Antonio & Vieira, 2018; Wiederkehr et al, 2014), and one study each done in Canada ( n = 1) (Salcedo et al, 2016), Italy ( n = 1) (Lazzaro et al, 2017) and Japan ( n = 1) (Yamashita et al, 2018). The methodologies used in the studies include 11 quasi‐experiment studies ( n = 11) (Antonio & Vieira, 2018; Kranzfelder et al, 2012, 2013; Lazzaro et al, 2017; Rupp et al, 2012; Salcedo et al, 2016; Steelman, 2011; Steelman & Alasagheirin, 2012; Wiederkehr et al, 2014; Williams et al, 2016; Yamashita et al, 2018), and four observational studies ( n = 4) (Inaba et al, 2016; Primiano et al, 2020; Steelman et al, 2019; Williams et al, 2014).…”

“…Among the 11 experimental studies, six evaluated the RFDS ( n = 6) (Antonio & Vieira, 2018; Rupp et al, 2012; Salcedo et al, 2016; Steelman, 2011; Steelman & Alasagheirin, 2012; Williams et al, 2016), while the other five evaluated the RFID ( n = 5) (Kranzfelder et al, 2012, 2013; Lazzaro et al, 2017; Wiederkehr et al, 2014; Yamashita et al, 2018). Tracked objects were surgical sponges in nine studies ( n = 9) (Antonio & Vieira, 2018; Kranzfelder et al, 2012; Lazzaro et al, 2017; Rupp et al, 2012; Salcedo et al, 2016; Steelman, 2011; Steelman & Alasagheirin, 2012; Wiederkehr et al, 2014; Williams et al, 2016), and surgical instrument in two studies ( n = 2) (Kranzfelder et al, 2013; Yamashita et al, 2018). The rest were observational studies (Inaba et al, 2016; Primiano et al, 2020; Steelman et al, 2019; Williams et al, 2014).…”

“…The sensitivity and specificity of RF scanning technology were evaluated in all five studies. Four out of five studies reported 100% sensitivity and specificity, and no false‐positive or false‐negative result was observed (Antonio & Vieira, 2018; Lazzaro et al, 2017; Steelman, 2011; Wiederkehr et al, 2014). Antonio and Vieira (2018) also compared the sensitivity and specificity of the RFID with the manual count, and the results showed that the sensitivity and specificity of the RFID were 100%.…”

“…Alasagheirin, 2012;Wiederkehr et al, 2014;Williams et al, 2016; Yamashita et al, 2018), and four observational studies (n = 4)(Inaba et al, 2016;Primiano et al, 2020;Steelman et al, 2019;Williams et al, 2014).Among the 11 experimental studies, six evaluated the RFDS (n = 6)(Antonio & Vieira, 2018;Rupp et al, 2012;Salcedo et al, 2016;Steelman, 2011;Steelman & Alasagheirin, 2012;Williams et al, 2016), while the other five evaluated the RFID (n = 5)(Kranzfelder et al, 2012(Kranzfelder et al, , 2013Lazzaro et al, 2017;Wiederkehr et al, 2014; Yamashita et al, 2018). Tracked objects were surgical sponges in nine studies (n = 9)(Antonio & Vieira, 2018;Kranzfelder et al, 2012;Lazzaro et al, 2017;Rupp et al, 2012;Salcedo et al, 2016;Steelman, 2011;Steelman & Alasagheirin, 2012;Wiederkehr et al, 2014;Williams et al, 2016), and surgical instrument in two studies (n = 2)(Kranzfelder et al, 2013; Yamashita et al, 2018). The rest were observational studies(Inaba et al, 2016; …”

Development of a Surgical Sponge Counting System Using Radiographic Images

“…A second method consists of attaching radiofrequency identification tags, allowing detection of sponges inside the patient's body and instant counting. 14,[18][19][20] However, when using this method, it is necessary to attach radio frequency identification (RFID) tags to all sponges. Therefore, the system takes a lot of time before surgery.…”