Evaluation of radiofrequency electronic system in intraoperative monitoring of surgical textiles

Abstract

ObjectiveTo test performance of SurgiSafe®, a radiofrequency electronic device to detect surgical textiles during operations as compared to manual counting.MethodsSurgical sponges with radiofrequency TAGs were placed in the abdominal cavity of a pig submitted to laparotomy, in randomly distributed sites. The TAGs were counted manually and also using SurgiSafe®. Positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, specificity and time required for counting were analyzed for both methods.ResultsThrough the analysis of 35 surgical cycles, SurgiSafe® immediately identified all sponges, with specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative predictive values of 100%. Although not statistically significant, the manual count had sensitivity of 99.72% and specificity of 99.90%.ConclusionSurgiSafe® proved to be an effective device to identify surgical sponges in vivo, in real time; and its use as an adjuvant to manual counting is very helpful to increase patient's safety.

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%.…”

“…The proportion of correctly identified negative responses (true negatives) to the sum of correctly identified negative responses (true negatives) and incorrectly identified positive responses (false positives) (Antonio & Vieira, 2018; Steelman, 2011).…”

“…The proportion of the true positive results to the sum of true and false‐negative results (Antonio & Vieira, 2018).…”