RFID to prevent loss of surgical sponges inside patients

We always said those sophisticated tracking tags had to be good for something other than data processing and jazzing up passports, and as the list of applications continues to grow, a study at Stanford University is showing how RFID chips can be used to potentially save lives. 1 out of 10,000 surgery survivors will experience the misfortune of having a foreign object remain in them after they're all sewn up, and nearly 67% of those remnants are surgical sponges. The traditional tracking system (eyes and careful counting) has failed enough times to cause 57 deaths since 2000, definitely not something you want to hear when you're going under the knife. Researchers have determined that tagging sponges (and other supplies) with RFID tags allows for a chip-reader to scan the body and detect any remaining, erm, used paraphernalia, yet to be removed. Volunteer-led studies have shown a perfect success rate in discovering leftovers thus far, and hopes are to have every instrument in the OR RFID'ed. This may make a few folks queasy, but we're all for keeping our innards a sponge-free environment.

[macona @ Jul 19th 2006 3:02PM]

So what about sterilization? Wouldnt an autoclave toast that little chip. I guess there is chemical sterilization too. Or would this only be used in disposeable items?

[Max @ Jul 19th 2006 4:00PM]

To the best of my knowledge, the only things reused between procedures are the metallic instruments. All other items are discarded.

This is a great innovation. They nearly left a sponge in my wife during her C-section. The nurse did a recount on the sponges and realized they were one short. If she hadn't double checked herself, they would have left the sponge in her. Neither of the surgeons noticed it.

[DT @ Jul 19th 2006 4:11PM]

Now, what they need to do is to tag Junior Mints.

[Michael Locker MD @ Jul 19th 2006 4:40PM]

Great idea!

Michael Locker MD

[DK @ Jul 19th 2006 4:53PM]

It is routine to double count the instuments, sponges, and needles even when the count is initally correct. Often times miscounts are due to needles, not instuments so I don't know how helpful this would be. Incidently, it is not uncommon for counts to be off during emergency surgeries (such as with some c-sections) and long complex bloody surgeries. However, all instuments, sponges, and needles are radioopaque, so if there is a miscount, XRays of the surgical field are routinely taken before closure.

[Pinkerton @ Jul 19th 2006 5:15PM]

Thanks for the "inside info" DK.

Working in the library-tech field, I find RFID to be quite an elegant solution for keeping track of thousands of books. Hopefully, the medical field can use this tech as well, without adding huge expense.

[Alex @ Jul 19th 2006 6:02PM]

Hate to break it to you guys, but this idea is not completely new. A company started at Carnegie Mellon University has several patents on the procedure and has been working on the business since 2004. If you want more proof, check out the following articles:

http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2005/01/03/story6.html
http://www.pittsburghlifesciences.com/content.aspx?id=1b9aacdc-c26d-472d-a41d-3f9548d43965
http://business.tepper.cmu.edu/default.aspx?id=142710 (See paragraph 5)

[H @ Jul 19th 2006 6:18PM]

DK is right. Also, the surgeons always rely on the scrub person and circulating nurse for the counts--the surgeons have other things to do and so the circulator counts (and writes down) everything that gets handed to the scrub person and then they run through the list together at the end. Its normal to count EVERYTHING twice (at least where I have worked) because when those little sponges get soaked, they can nearly impossible to see in the body. They even use these long bags with transparent individual pockets for each used sponge to make sure they get the count right. And needles are placed in a disposable holder and counted as they are used. (Its amazing, really, to see how much goes on to try and prevent these types of errors.) And if you cannot find something (assuming you count correctly), you can always x-ray to look for lost items. Of course, that is time-consuming and lost OR time is very expensive for the hospital, so these tags might be cost-effective. It is interesting.

[Dana @ Jul 19th 2006 11:47PM]

Great article, you are a really good writer.
This is a neat invention, it would save a lot of time in the OR--no more counting, and fewer expensive X-rays. As a nurse, I'm excited :)

[DR @ Jul 21st 2006 8:48PM]

It is nice to finally see a valid use for RFID tags.

Instead of the crap about Big Brother spying on us all the time.