Scalpel safety in the operative setting: A systematic review

Amber Watt, Michael Patkin, Matthew Sinnott, Robert Black, Guy Maddern

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

    22 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Background: The complex environment of the operative setting provides multiple opportunities for health care workers to sustain scalpel injuries; scalpels are the second most frequent source of sharps injuries in this setting. Little evidence has been published detailing the effectiveness of proposed safety procedures and devices. Methods: A systematic search strategy was used to identify relevant studies. Studies were included based on the application of a predetermined protocol, an independent assessment by 2 reviewers, and a consensus decision. Nineteen articles formed the evidence base for this review. Results: Little high-level evidence was available. The results of studies reporting on 5 different devices/procedures were identified: the use of cut-resistant gloves/liners decreased the number of glove perforations in comparison with double latex gloves alone but lessened the wearer's dexterity and tactile sensation; the benefit derived from the use of the hands-free passing technique seemed equivocal; "sharpless surgery" was found to be feasible; a single-handed blade remover prevented at least as many injuries as a safety scalpel; and some shoe materials provided superior foot protection. Conclusion: The lack of available evidence highlights the need for the generation of a methodologically rigorous, clinically relevant, and statistically valid body of primary research in this area to support appropriate and effective safety interventions.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)98-106
    Number of pages9
    JournalSurgery
    Volume147
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Jan 2010

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Scalpel safety in the operative setting: A systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this